Person:

Oaklander, Anne

Loading...
Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Oaklander

First Name

Anne

Name

Oaklander, Anne

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Publication

    Non-invasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) of the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain—At the Tipping Point?

    (Rambam Health Care Campus, 2013) Treister, Roi; Lang, Magdalena; Klein, Max; Oaklander, Anne

    The term “neuropathic pain” (NP) refers to chronic pain caused by illnesses or injuries that damage peripheral or central pain-sensing neural pathways to cause them to fire inappropriately and signal pain without cause. Neuropathic pain is common, complicating diabetes, shingles, HIV, and cancer. Medications are often ineffective or cause various adverse effects, so better approaches are needed. Half a century ago, electrical stimulation of specific brain regions (neuromodulation) was demonstrated to relieve refractory NP without distant effects, but the need for surgical electrode implantation limited use of deep brain stimulation. Next, electrodes applied to the dura outside the brain’s surface to stimulate the motor cortex were shown to relieve NP less invasively. Now, electromagnetic induction permits cortical neurons to be stimulated entirely non-invasively using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Repeated sessions of many TMS pulses (rTMS) can trigger neuronal plasticity to produce long-lasting therapeutic benefit. Repeated TMS already has US and European regulatory approval for treating refractory depression, and multiple small studies report efficacy for neuropathic pain. Recent improvements include “frameless stereotactic” neuronavigation systems, in which patients’ head MRIs allow TMS to be applied to precise underlying cortical targets, minimizing variability between sessions and patients, which may enhance efficacy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation appears poised for the larger trials necessary for regulatory approval of a NP indication. Since few clinicians are familiar with TMS, we review its theoretical basis and historical development, summarize the neuropathic pain trial results, and identify issues to resolve before large-scale clinical trials.

  • Publication

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research

    (Wolters Kluwer, 2015) Klein, Max; Treister, Roi; Raij, Tommi; Pascual-Leone, Alvaro; Park, Lawrence; Nurmikko, Turo; Lenz, Fred; Lefaucheur, Jean-Pascal; Lang, Magdalena; Hallett, Mark; Fox, Michael; Cudkowicz, Merit; Costello, Ann; Carr, Daniel B.; Ayache, Samar S.; Oaklander, Anne

    Abstract Recognizing that electrically stimulating the motor cortex could relieve chronic pain sparked development of noninvasive technologies. In transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), electromagnetic coils held against the scalp influence underlying cortical firing. Multiday repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can induce long-lasting, potentially therapeutic brain plasticity. Nearby ferromagnetic or electronic implants are contraindications. Adverse effects are minimal, primarily headaches. Single provoked seizures are very rare. Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices are marketed for depression and migraine in the United States and for various indications elsewhere. Although multiple studies report that high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex reduces neuropathic pain, their quality has been insufficient to support Food and Drug Administration application. Harvard's Radcliffe Institute therefore sponsored a workshop to solicit advice from experts in TMS, pain research, and clinical trials. They recommended that researchers standardize and document all TMS parameters and improve strategies for sham and double blinding. Subjects should have common well-characterized pain conditions amenable to motor cortex rTMS and studies should be adequately powered. They recommended standardized assessment tools (eg, NIH's PROMIS) plus validated condition-specific instruments and consensus-recommended metrics (eg, IMMPACT). Outcomes should include pain intensity and qualities, patient and clinician impression of change, and proportions achieving 30% and 50% pain relief. Secondary outcomes could include function, mood, sleep, and/or quality of life. Minimum required elements include sample sources, sizes, and demographics, recruitment methods, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline and posttreatment means and SD, adverse effects, safety concerns, discontinuations, and medication-usage records. Outcomes should be monitored for at least 3 months after initiation with prespecified statistical analyses. Multigroup collaborations or registry studies may be needed for pivotal trials.

  • Publication

    IVIg for apparently autoimmune small-fiber polyneuropathy: first analysis of efficacy and safety

    (SAGE Publications, 2018) Liu, Xiaolei; Treister, Roi; Lang, Magdalena; Oaklander, Anne

    Objectives: Small-fiber polyneuropathy (SFPN) has various underlying causes, including associations with systemic autoimmune conditions. We have proposed a new cause; small-fiber-targeting autoimmune diseases akin to Guillain-Barré and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). There are no treatment studies yet for this ‘apparently autoimmune SFPN’ (aaSFPN), but intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), first-line for Guillain-Barré and CIDP, is prescribed off-label for aaSFPN despite very high cost. This project aimed to conduct the first systematic evaluation of IVIg’s effectiveness for aaSFPN.

    Methods: With IRB approval, we extracted all available paper and electronic medical records of qualifying patients. Inclusion required having objectively confirmed SFPN, autoimmune attribution and other potential causes excluded. IVIg needed to have been dosed at ⩾1 g/kg/4 weeks for ⩾3 months. We chose two primary outcomes – changes in composite autonomic function testing (AFT) reports of SFPN and in ratings of pain severity – to capture objective as well as patient-prioritized outcomes.

    Results: Among all 55 eligible patients, SFPN had been confirmed by 3/3 nerve biopsies, 62% of skin biopsies, and 89% of composite AFT. Evidence of autoimmunity included 27% of patients having systemic autoimmune disorders, 20% having prior organ-specific autoimmune illnesses and 80% having ⩾1/5 abnormal blood-test markers associated with autoimmunity. A total of 73% had apparent small-fiber-restricted autoimmunity. IVIg treatment duration averaged 28 ± 25 months. The proportion of AFTs interpreted as indicating SFPN dropped from 89% at baseline to 55% (p ⩽ 0.001). Sweat production normalized (p = 0.039) and the other four domains all trended toward improvement. Among patients with pre-treatment pain ⩾3/10, severity averaging 6.3 ± 1.7 dropped to 5.2 ± 2.1 (p = 0.007). Overall, 74% of patients rated themselves ‘improved’ and their neurologists labeled 77% as ‘IVIg responders’; 16% entered remissions that were sustained after IVIg withdrawal. All adverse events were expected; most were typical infusion reactions. The two moderate complications (3.6%) were vein thromboses not requiring discontinuation. The one severe event (1.8%), hemolytic anemia, remitted after IVIg discontinuation.

    Conclusion: These results provide Class IV, real-world, proof-of-concept evidence suggesting that IVIg is safe and effective for rigorously selected SFPN patients with apparent autoimmune causality. They provide rationale for prospective trials, inform trial design and indirectly support the discovery of small-fiber-targeting autoimmune/inflammatory illnesses.

  • Publication

    Initial Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Symptom Survey for Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

    (Elsevier BV, 2017) Treister, Roi; Lodahl, Mette; Lang, Magdalena; Tworoger, Shelley; Sawilowsky, Shlomo; Oaklander, Anne

    Small-fiber polyneuropathy (SFPN) affects unmyelinated and thinly myelinated peripheral axons. Several questionnaires have been developed to assess polyneuropathy from diabetes or chemotherapy, but none for SFPN from other or unknown causes. A comprehensive survey could help clinicians diagnose and assess treatment responses, define prevalence natural history and cures, and identify research subjects. Thus, we developed the 1-page Small-Fiber Symptom Survey, using input from patients and 21 medical/scientific experts. Participants comprised consenting consecutive patients evaluated for SFPN at the Massachusetts General Hospital plus normal control subjects. Par- ticipants SFPN status was stratified on the basis of the results of their objective diagnostic tests (distal leg skin biopsy and autonomic function testing). We measured internal consistency, test retest reli- ability, convergent validity, and performed a receiver operating curve analysis. The 179 participants averaged 46.6 ± 15.6 years old; they were 73.2% female and 92.2% Caucasian. Eighty-five had confirmed SFPN, mostly idiopathic. Principal component analysis revealed 5 symptom clusters. The questionnaire had good internal consistency (Cronbach a = .893), excellent test retest reliability (r = .927, P < .001) and good to fair convergent validity. Participants with confirmed SFPN had more severe symptoms than others (P = .009). The Small-Fiber Symptom Survey has satisfactory psy- chometric properties, indicating potential future utility for surveying patient-reported symptoms of SFPN regardless of its cause.