Painful Diabetic NeuropathyNCT05937984
Treatment for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
A study of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN) occurs in a subset of diabetic patients, and is characterize by burning, shooting, and electric shock-like pain in the arms and legs. This represents a major health crisis, given the increasing prevalence of pDN and the significant impact it has on quality of life. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2023to 1 Dec 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- A diagnosis of painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN)
Who cannot join
- a known history of moderate to severe chronic pain other than pDN
- daily use of opioids prior to the pDN diagnosis
- contraindications to TMS
- known psychological diagnosis affecting comprehension and inability to participate in the study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Advanced Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Neuroplasticity and Alleviate Pain in Diabetic Neuropathy
Painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN) occurs in a subset of diabetic patients, and is characterize by burning, shooting, and electric shock-like pain in the arms and legs. This represents a major health crisis, given the increasing prevalence of pDN and the significant impact it has on quality of life. However, there is limited evidence of effective therapies for pDN pain relief. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that may be a promising therapy for pDN. Previous research has shown that rTMS reduces neuropathic pain in pDN (1, 2, 3). While this is promising, it is important to note that rTMS is effective for ~50% of patients with neuropathic pain. (4, 5). Recent advancements in rTMS technology have created the opportunity for remarkable strides in the effectiveness of this potential therapy. This new development called controlled pulse parameter TMS (cTMS) increases the magnitude and longevity of TMS-induced effects. Although not tested in chronic pain, cTMS possess the power to make transformative changes in pDN, potentially yielding greater and widespread improvements in pain. The overarching goal of the proposed research is to assess the effects of a 5-day cTMS stimulation protocol on measures of pain and neurological function in individuals with pDN.
- Kwak S, Choi SG, Chang GS, \& Yang MC (2022). Short-term Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain. Pain Physician, 25(2), E203-E209.
- Abdelkader AA, Gohary AME, Mourad HS, \& Salmawy DAE (2019). Repetitive tms in treatment of resistant diabetic neuropathic pain. Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery, 55(1).
- Onesti E et al. (2013). H-coil repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy. European Journal of Pain (United Kingdom), 17(9).
- Attal N et al. (2021). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial. Brain, 144(11).
- Dongyang L et al. (2021). Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 51(4).
Read the detailed description
Background: Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes occurring in ~50% of patients [1, 2]. Of these individuals, ~20% will develop painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN) [3] as a consequence of abnormal changes in the peripheral somatosensory system [4]. pDN is characterized by sensory changes including hyperalgesia, allodynia, paresthesia, and burning, shooting, and electric shock-like pain affecting lower and upper extremities [4-6]. pDN is a result of high glucose concentrations that damages peripheral nerves [7] resulting in hyperexcitability of nociceptive neurons in the dorsal horn and central sensitization [8]. pDN is also marked by alterations in the central nervous system [6] including the descending modulatory system [9] and maladaptive changes to somatosensory and motor areas [10]. pDN is associated with decreased quality of life, anxiety, and depression [5]. The treatment of pDN currently involves opioid agonist, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants however, these drugs are associated with undesired side effects [11] and only achieve a 50% reduction in pain with delayed onset [12]. Importantly, the prevalence of pDN is increasing [13] and given the limited effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, pDN represents a major healthcare crisis.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be a beneficial therapy for patients with pDN. Sham controlled studies [14-19] and meta-analyses [20-23] have demonstrated that high frequency rTMS stimulation applied to the primary motor cortex reduces symptoms of neuropathic pain in heterogenous groups of patients [24]. Our lab recently demonstrated that rTMS is effective at alleviating electric attacks in an individual with NP following SCI [25]. rTMS is also effective in pDN. Yang [26] found analgesic relief one day following stimulation to the hand representation of the primary motor cortex that persisted for 1 week. rTMS was also associated with significant improvements in physical and mental health measured using the SF-36 physical component score and mental component score respectively [26]. Abdelkader [27] indicated pain relief at 3 weeks post rTMS in patients with insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent pDN as well as improvements in lower limb nerve conduction latency and velocity. Comparatively, Onesti [8] targeted the leg representation in the primary motor cortex. rTMS reduced pain compared to sham immediately post stimulation but did not persist at three weeks [8]. rTMS also produced a depression of spinal nociceptive neurons as indicated through a decrease in the area of nociceptive flexion RIII reflex [8]. This finding suggests that rTMS increases the firing rates of cells in motor cortex and increases corticospinal excitability and neuroplasticity. These changes are thought to modulate descending inhibitory pain pathways through spinal interneural networks producing hypoexcitability of spinal nociceptive neurons [8]. Although the few studies in pDN demonstrate promise, it is important to note that rTMS is effective for ~50% of patients with neuropathic pain [24, 28] leaving much room for further improvement.
Recent advancements in rTMS technology have created the opportunity for remarkable strides in neuroplasticity. This new development called controlled pulse parameter TMS (cTMS) increases the magnitude and longevity of rTMS induced plasticity in humans [29, 30]. Fundamental to previous (i.e. traditional) rTMS is the biphasic pulse shape that are used during stimulation. In cTMS, pulses are monophasic and modifiable, and can be delivered at high rates used in rTMS [31, 32]. Although not tested in chronic pain, cTMS possess the power to make transformative changes in pDN, potentially yielding greater and widespread improvements in pain. The overarching goal of the proposed research is to assess the effects of a 10-day cTMS stimulation protocol on measures of pain, neuroplasticity, and somatosensory function in individuals with pDN.
How is cTMS thought to induce neuroplasticity and reduce pain? The primary motor cortex (M1) is directly implicated in modulating pain signals [33] through descending inhibitory control to thalamus [34, 35] and its connections with pain processing areas [36] including somatosensory [37] anterior cingulate cortex and prefrontal cortices [38, 39]. The analgesic effect of rTMS is suggested to occur by re-establishing both intracortical inhibition [40], GABAergic inhibition [41, 43], and descending inhibitory control [34, 35]. cTMS may more readily activate and cause change in the circuits projecting to these areas. Specifically, monophasic pulses delivered with repetitive cTMS produce larger and more long-lasting changes in cortical excitability [29] and greater depths of inhibition compared to traditional biphasic rTMS [30]. Monophasic pulses also produce more reliable cortical responses in cortical excitability, intracortical and GABAergic inhibition [44]. These findings have been suggested to occur as a result of the uniform pattern of cortical activation from monophasic pulses. Monophasic pulses produce greater global mean field power (GMFP) measured through electroencephalography (EEG) compared to biphasic [31]. Specifically, biphasic pulses may activate populations of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons which may dampen the overall effects of the stimulation protocol [29]. Taken together, cTMS may facilitate a greater propensity for change in these circuits and ultimately pain relief when applied to individuals with NP. The specific aims of this study in pDN are to:
- Investigate the effects of a 10-day cTMS intervention on pain symptoms. The investigators hypothesize that cTMS will produce analgesic relief that will be associated with changes in neuroplasticity and somatosensory function compared to sham. Importantly, the effect of real and sham cTMS will be explored within individuals.
- To explore the feasibility of the 10-day cTMS intervention. This will inform the utility of cTMS interventions in future treatments studies. In addition, the patient perceived change from the intervention will be assessed to improve the patient experience for future studies.
- To assess the effects of the 10-day cTMS intervention on neurophysiology and somatosensory function. It is hypothesized that cTMS will produce neuromodulatory effects associated with increased cortical excitability, GABAergic inhibition, neuroplasticity, and improve somatosensory function compared to sham.
- Conditions
- Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
- Being tested
- Active Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS), Sham Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)
- Keywords
- controlled transcranial magnetic stimulation, painful diabetic neuropathy, pain, neuroplasticity
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetic Neuropathies, Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Active Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)Device
cTMS is a non-invasive, non-painful procedure used to relieve chronic pain and promote short-term changes. The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) muscle of the left motor cortex will be targeted using neuronavigation software. 1500 pulses will be delivered at 10 Hz stimulation. Stimulation will be delivered at 80% of the resting motor threshold obtained from the right APB muscle. The delivery of cTMS requires 9 minutes in total.
Sham Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)Device
A sham coil will be utilized for the sham cTMS condition. It is important to note that from the participant perspective, the sham stimulation will feel and sound identical to active. The location and all other parameters of Sham cTMS will be identical to Active cTMS.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Active cTMS | Active comparator | Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS) will be delivered at 10 Hz, 1500 pulses targeting the hand representation of the left primary motor cortex. cTMS delivery will require ~9 min to complete. This intervention will be performed approximately 5 days per week for 2 weeks. In addition, participants will experience their standard medical care. Receives: Device: Active Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS) |
| Sham cTMS | Sham comparator | Sham cTMS will be delivered at as a placebo control. It is important to note that from the participant perspective, the sham stimulation will feel and sound identical to active cTMS. This will be performed approximately 5 days per week for 2 weeks. In addition, participants will experience their standard medical care. Receives: Device: Sham Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in PROMIS-29 v2.0 Profile
Using numerical rating (0 to 5) to assess the change in seven health domains including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbances, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and pain interference. Each category consists of 4 questions. Also uses a numerical rating to asses pain intensity (0-10).
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Secondary outcomes (7)
Number of responders to active cTMS
Defined as participants who experienced a reduction in NRS of at least 2 points at T1 or T4
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in Patient Perceived Global Index of Change (PGIC)
1-7 Likert Scale: Patients rate their change as "very much improved," "much improved," "minimally improved," "no change," "minimally worse," "much worse," or "very much worse.
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in Pain catastrophizing scale-EN-SF
Will be used to assess the patients feeling and emotion related to their pain experience
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Compliance of treatment sessions
Compliance of sessions is defined as a minimum of attending 3 sessions per week for 2 weeks.
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in neurophysiological assessment
This will include assessments of Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), short-intracortical inhibition (SICI), contralateral silent period (cSP) and motor maps obtained with single-pulse TMS (note: this form of TMS does not induce neuroplasticity like cTMS, but is instead used to assess the baseline excitability of the primary motor cortex)
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in quantitative sensory testing
Will be used in this study to assess somatosensory function to determine underlying pain mechanisms for pain phenotypes. QST will be used to measure detection thresholds for cold, warm, vibration, and mechanical stimuli. Pain thresholds will be assessed for cold, heat, mechanical, and pressure stimuli. In addition, allodynia will be measured.
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in nerve conduction assessments
Nerve conduction measures will be acquired from bilateral upper and lower limbs. These will include both motor (tibial and ulnar) and sensory nerves (superficial peroneal, sural, and ulnar). Nerve conduction outcomes will include latencies, amplitudes, and conduction velocities and F-waves for the aforementioned nerves. In addition to nerve conduction, participants with lower limb pDN will have Hoffman-reflex assessments performed on bilateral lower limb. For all participants, the maximum M-wave (M-Max) of the right APB muscle will be acquired.
Measured: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jul 2023
- Study start1 Oct 2023
- Primary completion1 Aug 2025
- Study completion1 Dec 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Painful Diabetic NeuropathyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by McMaster UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Aimee Nelson, McMaster University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05937984
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 16418
- Status last verified
- Jun 2023
- First submitted
- 8 Jun 2023
- Last updated
- 4 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Advanced Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Neuroplasticity and Alleviate Pain in Diabetic Neuropathy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05937984
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 16418
- Conditions
- Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
- Keywords
- controlled transcranial magnetic stimulation, painful diabetic neuropathy, pain, neuroplasticity
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Dec 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Jul 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN) occurs in a subset of diabetic patients, and is characterize by burning, shooting, and electric shock-like pain in the arms and legs. This represents a major health crisis, given the increasing prevalence of pDN and the significant impact it has on quality of life. However, there is limited evidence of effective therapies for pDN pain relief. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that may be a promising therapy for pDN. Previous research has shown that rTMS reduces neuropathic pain in pDN (1, 2, 3). While this is promising, it is important to note that rTMS is effective for ~50% of patients with neuropathic pain. (4, 5). Recent advancements in rTMS technology have created the opportunity for remarkable strides in the effectiveness of this potential therapy. This new development called controlled pulse parameter TMS (cTMS) increases the magnitude and longevity of TMS-induced effects. Although not tested in chronic pain, cTMS possess the power to make transformative changes in pDN, potentially yielding greater and widespread improvements in pain. The overarching goal of the proposed research is to assess the effects of a 5-day cTMS stimulation protocol on measures of pain and neurological function in individuals with pDN.
- Kwak S, Choi SG, Chang GS, \& Yang MC (2022). Short-term Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain. Pain Physician, 25(2), E203-E209.
- Abdelkader AA, Gohary AME, Mourad HS, \& Salmawy DAE (2019). Repetitive tms in treatment of resistant diabetic neuropathic pain. Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery, 55(1).
- Onesti E et al. (2013). H-coil repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy. European Journal of Pain (United Kingdom), 17(9).
- Attal N et al. (2021). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial. Brain, 144(11).
- Dongyang L et al. (2021). Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 51(4).
Detailed description
Background: Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes occurring in ~50% of patients [1, 2]. Of these individuals, ~20% will develop painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN) [3] as a consequence of abnormal changes in the peripheral somatosensory system [4]. pDN is characterized by sensory changes including hyperalgesia, allodynia, paresthesia, and burning, shooting, and electric shock-like pain affecting lower and upper extremities [4-6]. pDN is a result of high glucose concentrations that damages peripheral nerves [7] resulting in hyperexcitability of nociceptive neurons in the dorsal horn and central sensitization [8]. pDN is also marked by alterations in the central nervous system [6] including the descending modulatory system [9] and maladaptive changes to somatosensory and motor areas [10]. pDN is associated with decreased quality of life, anxiety, and depression [5]. The treatment of pDN currently involves opioid agonist, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants however, these drugs are associated with undesired side effects [11] and only achieve a 50% reduction in pain with delayed onset [12]. Importantly, the prevalence of pDN is increasing [13] and given the limited effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, pDN represents a major healthcare crisis.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be a beneficial therapy for patients with pDN. Sham controlled studies [14-19] and meta-analyses [20-23] have demonstrated that high frequency rTMS stimulation applied to the primary motor cortex reduces symptoms of neuropathic pain in heterogenous groups of patients [24]. Our lab recently demonstrated that rTMS is effective at alleviating electric attacks in an individual with NP following SCI [25]. rTMS is also effective in pDN. Yang [26] found analgesic relief one day following stimulation to the hand representation of the primary motor cortex that persisted for 1 week. rTMS was also associated with significant improvements in physical and mental health measured using the SF-36 physical component score and mental component score respectively [26]. Abdelkader [27] indicated pain relief at 3 weeks post rTMS in patients with insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent pDN as well as improvements in lower limb nerve conduction latency and velocity. Comparatively, Onesti [8] targeted the leg representation in the primary motor cortex. rTMS reduced pain compared to sham immediately post stimulation but did not persist at three weeks [8]. rTMS also produced a depression of spinal nociceptive neurons as indicated through a decrease in the area of nociceptive flexion RIII reflex [8]. This finding suggests that rTMS increases the firing rates of cells in motor cortex and increases corticospinal excitability and neuroplasticity. These changes are thought to modulate descending inhibitory pain pathways through spinal interneural networks producing hypoexcitability of spinal nociceptive neurons [8]. Although the few studies in pDN demonstrate promise, it is important to note that rTMS is effective for ~50% of patients with neuropathic pain [24, 28] leaving much room for further improvement.
Recent advancements in rTMS technology have created the opportunity for remarkable strides in neuroplasticity. This new development called controlled pulse parameter TMS (cTMS) increases the magnitude and longevity of rTMS induced plasticity in humans [29, 30]. Fundamental to previous (i.e. traditional) rTMS is the biphasic pulse shape that are used during stimulation. In cTMS, pulses are monophasic and modifiable, and can be delivered at high rates used in rTMS [31, 32]. Although not tested in chronic pain, cTMS possess the power to make transformative changes in pDN, potentially yielding greater and widespread improvements in pain. The overarching goal of the proposed research is to assess the effects of a 10-day cTMS stimulation protocol on measures of pain, neuroplasticity, and somatosensory function in individuals with pDN.
How is cTMS thought to induce neuroplasticity and reduce pain? The primary motor cortex (M1) is directly implicated in modulating pain signals [33] through descending inhibitory control to thalamus [34, 35] and its connections with pain processing areas [36] including somatosensory [37] anterior cingulate cortex and prefrontal cortices [38, 39]. The analgesic effect of rTMS is suggested to occur by re-establishing both intracortical inhibition [40], GABAergic inhibition [41, 43], and descending inhibitory control [34, 35]. cTMS may more readily activate and cause change in the circuits projecting to these areas. Specifically, monophasic pulses delivered with repetitive cTMS produce larger and more long-lasting changes in cortical excitability [29] and greater depths of inhibition compared to traditional biphasic rTMS [30]. Monophasic pulses also produce more reliable cortical responses in cortical excitability, intracortical and GABAergic inhibition [44]. These findings have been suggested to occur as a result of the uniform pattern of cortical activation from monophasic pulses. Monophasic pulses produce greater global mean field power (GMFP) measured through electroencephalography (EEG) compared to biphasic [31]. Specifically, biphasic pulses may activate populations of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons which may dampen the overall effects of the stimulation protocol [29]. Taken together, cTMS may facilitate a greater propensity for change in these circuits and ultimately pain relief when applied to individuals with NP. The specific aims of this study in pDN are to:
- Investigate the effects of a 10-day cTMS intervention on pain symptoms. The investigators hypothesize that cTMS will produce analgesic relief that will be associated with changes in neuroplasticity and somatosensory function compared to sham. Importantly, the effect of real and sham cTMS will be explored within individuals.
- To explore the feasibility of the 10-day cTMS intervention. This will inform the utility of cTMS interventions in future treatments studies. In addition, the patient perceived change from the intervention will be assessed to improve the patient experience for future studies.
- To assess the effects of the 10-day cTMS intervention on neurophysiology and somatosensory function. It is hypothesized that cTMS will produce neuromodulatory effects associated with increased cortical excitability, GABAergic inhibition, neuroplasticity, and improve somatosensory function compared to sham.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Active cTMS | Active comparator | Device: Active Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS) will be delivered at 10 Hz, 1500 pulses targeting the hand representation of the left primary motor cortex. cTMS delivery will require ~9 min to complete. This intervention will be performed approximately 5 days per week for 2 weeks. In addition, participants will experience their standard medical care. |
| Sham cTMS | Sham comparator | Device: Sham Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)Sham cTMS will be delivered at as a placebo control. It is important to note that from the participant perspective, the sham stimulation will feel and sound identical to active cTMS. This will be performed approximately 5 days per week for 2 weeks. In addition, participants will experience their standard medical care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- A diagnosis of painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN)
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- a known history of moderate to severe chronic pain other than pDN
- daily use of opioids prior to the pDN diagnosis
- contraindications to TMS
- known psychological diagnosis affecting comprehension and inability to participate in the study
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Active Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)cTMS is a non-invasive, non-painful procedure used to relieve chronic pain and promote short-term changes. The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) muscle of the left motor cortex will be targeted using neuronavigation software. 1500 pulses will be delivered at 10 Hz stimulation. Stimulation will be delivered at 80% of the resting motor threshold obtained from the right APB muscle. The delivery of cTMS requires 9 minutes in total. | Device | Active cTMS |
| Sham Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS)A sham coil will be utilized for the sham cTMS condition. It is important to note that from the participant perspective, the sham stimulation will feel and sound identical to active. The location and all other parameters of Sham cTMS will be identical to Active cTMS. | Device | Sham cTMS |
Primary outcome
Change in PROMIS-29 v2.0 Profile
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Using numerical rating (0 to 5) to assess the change in seven health domains including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbances, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and pain interference. Each category consists of 4 questions. Also uses a numerical rating to asses pain intensity (0-10).
7 secondary outcomes
Number of responders to active cTMS
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in Patient Perceived Global Index of Change (PGIC)
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in Pain catastrophizing scale-EN-SF
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Compliance of treatment sessions
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in neurophysiological assessment
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in quantitative sensory testing
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Change in nerve conduction assessments
Time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jun 2026.
Related trials for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
RecruitingObservational study
Safety and Effect of Peripheral Nerve Decompression Combined With Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, Diabetes Complication
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Modality Choice Before and After Failure for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
Painful Diabetic Neuropathy (PDN), Diabetic Nephropathies
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Perineural Botulinum Toxin Injection Versus Oral Duloxetine in Relief of Foot Pain in Painful Peripheral Diabetic Neuropathy
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
RecruitingPhase 2
SPENDD: Quantitative Sensory Testing and Analgesic Response for Painful Peripheral Neuropathy.
Painful Peripheral Neuropathy, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (DPN)
Recruiting
Neurofeedback for the Management of Neuropathic Pain in People With Diabetes
Neuropathy, Painful Diabetic
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in PROMIS-29 v2.0 Profile (time frame: Day 1 of intervention, 24 hours post intervention, and 1 week post intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Jun 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.