A Systematic Review on the Acceptability and Tolerability of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment in Neuropsychiatry Trials

Distinct trajectories of response to prefrontal tDCS in major depression: results from a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe, effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). While antidepressant effects are heterogeneous, no studies have investigated trajectories of tDCS response. We characterized distinct improvement trajectories and associated baseline characteristics for patients treated with prefrontal tDCS, an active pharmacotherapy (escitalopram), and placebo. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized, non-inferiority, double-blinded trial (ELECT-TDCS, N = 245). Participants were diagnosed with an acute unipolar, nonpsychotic, depressive episode, and presented Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-items, HAM-D) scores ≥17. Latent trajectory modeling was used to identify HAM-D response trajectories over a 10-week treatment. Top-down (hypothesis-driven) and bottom-up (data-driven) methods were employed to explore potential predictive features using, respectively, conservatively corrected regression models and a cross-validated stability ranking procedure combined with elastic net regularization. Three trajectory classes that were distinct in response speed and intensity (rapid, slow, and no/minimal improvement) were identified for escitalopram, tDCS, and placebo. Differences in response and remission rates were significant early for all groups. Depression severity, use of benzodiazepines, and age were associated with no/minimal improvement. No significant differences in trajectory assignment were found in tDCS vs. placebo comparisons (38.3, 34, and 27.6%; vs. 23.3, 43.3, and 33.3% for rapid, slow, and no/minimal trajectories, respectively). Additional features are suggested in bottom-up analyses. Summarily, groups treated with tDCS, escitalopram, and placebo differed in trajectory class distributions and baseline predictors of response. Our results might be relevant for designing further studies.

Acceptability of tDCS in treating stress-related mental health disorders: a mixed methods study among military patients and caregivers

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) offer potential new approaches to treat stress-related mental health disorders. While the acceptability of tDCS as a treatment tool plays a crucial role in its development and implementation, little is known about tDCS acceptability for users in mental healthcare, especially in the context of stress-related disorders.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated tDCS acceptability among 102 active duty and post-active military patients with stress-related symptoms (posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and impulsive aggression) who participated in a 5-session tDCS intervention. Quantitative dropout and adverse effects data was collected for all patients involved in the sham-controlled tDCS intervention. We additionally explored perspectives on the acceptability of tDCS treatment via a theory-based semi-structured interview. A subgroup of patients as well as their caregivers were interviewed to include the views of both patients and mental healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Quantitative outcomes showed minimal tDCS-related adverse effects (mild itching or burning sensations on the scalp) and high tDCS treatment adherence (dropout rate: 4% for active tDCS, 0% for sham). The qualitative outcomes showed predominantly positive attitudes towards tDCS interventions for stress-related disorders, but only as complementary to psychotherapy. Remarkably, despite the perception that sufficient explanation was provided, patients and caregivers stressed that tDCS treatment comprehension was limited and should improve. Also, the travel associated with frequent on-site tDCS sessions may produce a significant barrier to care for patients with stress-related disorders and active-duty military personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptability numbers and perspectives from military patients and caregivers suggest that tDCS is an acceptable complementary tool in the treatment of stress-related disorders. Critically, however, if tDCS is to be used beyond scientific studies, adequately educating users on tDCS working mechanisms is vital to further improve its acceptability. Also, the perceived potential barrier to care due to frequent travel may favor home-based tDCS solutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The tDCS intervention was part of a sham-controlled trial registered on 05-18-2016 at the Netherlands Trial Register with ID NL5709 .

Systematic Review on the Safety and Tolerability of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children and Adolescents

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe, tolerable, and acceptable technique in adults. However, there is limited evidence for its safety in youth. Although limited, there are a handful of important empirical articles that have evaluated safety and tolerability outcomes in youth. However, a synthesis of pediatric safety studies is not currently available.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize objective evidence regarding the safety and tolerability of pediatric tDCS based on the current state of the literature.

METHODS

Our search and report used PRISMA guidelines. Our method systematically examined investigations purposefully designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and acceptability of tDCS in healthy and atypical youth that were submitted to three databases, from the beginning of the database to November 2019. Safety considerations were evaluated by studies utilizing neuroimaging, physiological changes, performance on tasks, and by analyzing reported and objective side effects; tolerability via rate of adverse events; and acceptability via rate of dropouts.

RESULTS

We report on 203 sham sessions, 864 active sessions up to 2 mA, and 303 active hours of stimulation in 156 children. A total of 4.4% of the active sessions were in neurotypical controls, with the other 95.6% in clinical subjects.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the fact that the current evidence is sporadic and scarce, the presently reviewed literature provides support for the safety, tolerability, and acceptability, of tDCS in youth for 1-20 sessions of 20 min up to 2 mA. Future pediatric tDCS research is encouraged.

Immediate and after effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation in the mouse primary somatosensory cortex

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique consisting in the application of weak electric currents on the scalp. Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of tDCS for modulating sensory, motor, and cognitive functions, there are still huge gaps in the knowledge of the underlying physiological mechanisms. To define the immediate impact as well as the after effects of tDCS on sensory processing, we first performed electrophysiological recordings in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) of alert mice during and after administration of S1-tDCS, and followed up with immunohistochemical analysis of the stimulated brain regions. During the application of cathodal and anodal transcranial currents we observed polarity-specific bidirectional changes in the N1 component of the sensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and associated gamma oscillations. On the other hand, 20 min of cathodal stimulation produced significant after-effects including a decreased SEP amplitude for up to 30 min, a power reduction in the 20-80 Hz range and a decrease in gamma event related synchronization (ERS). In contrast, no significant changes in SEP amplitude or power analysis were observed after anodal stimulation except for a significant increase in gamma ERS after tDCS cessation. The polarity-specific differences of these after effects were corroborated by immunohistochemical analysis, which revealed an unbalance of GAD 65-67 immunoreactivity between the stimulated versus non-stimulated S1 region only after cathodal tDCS. These results highlight the differences between immediate and after effects of tDCS, as well as the asymmetric after effects induced by anodal and cathodal stimulation.

Cognitive outcomes of the bipolar depression electrical treatment trial (BETTER): a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study

Bipolar depression is associated with marked cognitive deficits. Pharmacological treatments for this condition are limited and may aggravate depressive and cognitive symptoms. Therefore, therapeutic interventions that preserve adequate cognitive functioning are necessary. Our previous results demonstrated significant clinical efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial (BETTER). Here, cognitive outcomes of this study are reported. We randomized 59 patients with bipolar disorder I or II in an acute depressive episode to receive active (12 2 mA, 30-min, anodal-left, cathodal-right prefrontal cortex tDCS sessions) or sham tDCS. Patients were on stable pharmacological regimen for at least 2 weeks. A battery of 12 neuropsychological assessments in five cognitive domains (attention and processing speed, memory, language, inhibitory control, and working memory and executive function) was performed at baseline, after two weeks and at endpoint (week 6). No significant differences between groups over 6 weeks of treatment were observed for any cognitive outcomes. Moreover, no decrease in cognitive performance was observed. Our findings warrant further replication in larger studies. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152878.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa

Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a life-threatening illness with poor treatment outcomes. Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation method, its effect in patients with AN remains unclear. Objective: This study investigated changes in maladaptive eating behavior, body mass index (BMI), and depression after 10 sessions of anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 43 inpatients with AN were divided to receive either active (n = 22) or sham (n = 21) tDCS over the left DLPFC (anode F3/cathode Fp2, 2 mA for 30 min). All patients filled the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZUNG), and their BMI was measured. These values were obtained repeatedly in four stages: (1) before tDCS treatment, (2) after tDCS treatment, (3) in the follow-up after 2 weeks, and (4) in the follow-up after 4 weeks. Results: Primary outcomes (EDE-Q) based on the ANOVA results do not show any between-group differences either after the active part of the study or in the follow-up. Secondary analysis reveals a reduction in some items of EDE-Q. Compared with sham tDCS, active tDCS significantly improved self-evaluation based on body shape (p < 0.05) and significantly decreased the need of excessive control over calorie intake (p < 0.05) in the 4-week follow-up. However, the results do not survive multiple comparison correction. In both sham and active groups, the BMI values improved, albeit not significantly. Conclusion: We did not observe a significant effect of tDCS over the left DLPFC on complex psychopathology and weight recovery in patients with AN. tDCS reduced the need to follow specific dietary rules and improved body image evaluation in patients with AN. Tests with a larger sample and different positions of electrodes are needed. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03273205.

Role of skin tissue layers and ultra-structure in transcutaneous electrical stimulation including tDCS

BACKGROUND

During transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), current density concentration around the electrode edges that is predicted by simplistic skin models does not match experimental observations of erythema, heating, or other adverse events. We hypothesized that enhancing models to include skin anatomical details, would alter predicted current patterns to align with experimental observations.

METHOD

We develop a high-resolution multi-layer skin model (epidermis, dermis, and fat), with or without additional ultra-structures (hair follicles, sweat glands, and blood vessels). Current flow patterns across each layer and within ultra-structures were predicted using finite element methods considering a broad range of modeled tissue parameters including 78 combinations of skin layer conductivities (S m^-1): epidermis (standard: 1.05 × 10^-5; range: 1.05 × 10^-6 to 0.465); dermis (standard: 0.23; range: 0.0023 to 23), fat (standard: 2 × 10^-4; range: 0.02 to 2 × 10^-5). The impact of each ultra-structures in isolation and combination was evaluated with varied basic geometries. An integrated final model is then developed.

RESULTS

Consistent with prior models, current flow through homogenous skin was annular (concentrated at the electrode edges). In multi-layer skin, reducing epidermis conductivity and/or increasing dermis conductivity decreased current near electrode edges, however no realistic tissue layer parameters produced non-annular current flow at both epidermis and dermis. Addition of just hair follicles, sweat glands, or blood vessels resulted in current peaks around each ultrastructure, irrespective of proximity to electrode edges. Addition of only sweat glands was the most effective approach in reducing overall current concentration near electrode edges. Representation of blood vessels resulted in a uniform current flow across the vascular network. Finally, we ran the first realistic model of current flow across the skin.

CONCLUSION

We confirm prior models exhibiting current concentration near hair follicles or sweat glands, but also exhibit that an overall annular pattern of current flow remains for realistic tissue parameters. We model skin blood vessels for the first time and show that this robustly distributes current across the vascular network, consistent with experimental erythema patterns. Only a state-of-the-art precise model of skin current flow predicts lack of current concentration near electrode edges across all skin layers.

Preoperative Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Glioma Patients: A Proof of Concept Pilot Study

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used extensively in patient populations to facilitate motor network plasticity. However, it has not been studied in patients with brain tumors. We aimed to determine the feasibility of a preoperative motor training and tDCS intervention in patients with glioma. In an exploratory manner, we assessed changes in motor network connectivity following this intervention and related these changes to predicted electrical field strength from the stimulated motor cortex.

Methods: Patients with left-sided glioma (n=8) were recruited in an open label proof of concept pilot trial and participated in four consecutive days of motor training combined with tDCS. The motor training consisted of a 60-min period where the subject learned to play the piano with their right hand. Concurrently, they received 40 min of 2 mA anodal tDCS of the left motor cortex. Patients underwent task and resting state fMRI before and after this intervention. Changes in both the connectivity of primary motor cortex (M1) and general connectivity across the brain were assessed. Patient specific finite element models were created and the predicted electrical field (EF) resulting from stimulation was computed. The magnitude of the EF was extracted from left M1 and correlated to the observed changes in functional connectivity.

Results: There were no adverse events and all subjects successfully completed the study protocol. Left M1 increased both local and global connectivity. Voxel-wide measures, not constrained by a specific region, revealed increased global connectivity of the frontal pole and decreased global connectivity of the supplementary motor area. The magnitude of EF applied to the left M1 correlated with changes in global connectivity of the right M1.

Conclusion: In this proof of concept pilot study, we demonstrate for the first time that tDCS appears to be feasible in glioma patients. In our exploratory analysis, we show preoperative motor training combined with tDCS may alter sensorimotor network connectivity. Patient specific modeling of EF in the presence of tumor may contribute to understanding the dose-response relationship of this intervention. Overall, this suggests the possibility of modulating neural networks in glioma patients.

Appraising the effectiveness of electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques in acute major depressive episodes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation in children and adolescents with ADHD: The point of view of parents

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel treatment option for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. To facilitate translation into clinical practice, we interviewed parents of children who have experienced experimental tDCS. A grounded theory approach using open, axial, and selective coding provided seven emergent themes for acceptability: tDCS provides hope for parents, safety tolerability and side effects of tDCS versus medication, burden of treatment, education and trust with care providers, cost and coverage, unestablished tDCS efficacy versus established medication effectiveness, perceived compliance of tDCS versus medication. Results suggest tDCS is acceptable but depends on evidence of effectiveness and regular availability.

Tolerability and Blinding of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in People with Parkinson's Disease: A Critical Review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is accompanied by transient sensations (e.g., tingling, itching, burning), which may affect treatment outcomes or break the blinding of the study protocol. Assessing tolerability and blinding is integral to providing ample evidence of a "real effect" from the applied stimulation and dispelling the possibility of placebo effects. People with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) endure many motor and non-motor symptoms that might be amenable to tDCS. However, because the disease also affects sensation capabilities, these subjects might report tolerability and blinding differently than other cohorts. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to aggregate the tolerability and blinding reports of tDCS studies in PwPD and recommend a standard tolerability and blinding reporting practice. A literature search of the PubMed and Scopus databases from 1 January 2020 to 1 April 2020 was performed to identify publications that applied tDCS to PwPD. Seventy studies were potentially reviewable, but only 36 (nine with quantitative tolerability reports, 20 with qualitative tolerability reports, and seven that only reported blinding) provided sufficient information to be included in the review. Quantitative information on tDCS tolerability and blinding maintenance in PwPD is scarce, and future reviews and metanalyses should carefully consider the possibility of placebo effects in their included studies.

First Epileptic Seizure and Initial Diagnosis of Juvenile Myoclonus Epilepsy (JME) in a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Study– Ethical Analysis of a Clinical case

We discuss an epileptic incident in an undiagnosed 13-year old girl participating in a clinical study investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in healthy children and adolescents. This incident poses important research ethics questions with regard to study design, especially pertaining to screening and gaining informed consent. Potential benefits and problems of the incident also need to be considered. The ethical analysis of the case presented in this paper has been informed by an in-depth interview conducted after the incident with the child and the accompanying parent. We discuss the ethical implications of the epileptic incident, the need for improving screening procedures for studies with minors and for providing more effective communication. This case also underscores the problem of undetected teenage epilepsy in neuropsychological clinical studies and the necessity of raising more awareness of this issue. Since research in tDCS is an active and expanding field, we conclude with providing some recommendation that could ensure that future research on tDCS, or other therapies and neuro-interventions where there is a risk of triggering an epileptic seizure, take into account the specifics of teenage epilepsy and the need for more thorough provision of information during the process of gaining informed consent.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in depressive episodes

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown mixed results for depression treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials using tDCS to improve depressive symptoms.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from the first date available to January 06, 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and additional sources. We included randomized, sham-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling participants with an acute depressive episode and compared the efficacy of active versus sham tDCS, including association with other interventions. The primary outcome was the Hedges' g for continuous depression scores; secondary outcomes included odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT) for response, remission, and acceptability. Random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were explored via metaregression, sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and bias assessment.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (25 datasets, 1,092 participants), most (57%) presenting a low risk of bias. Active tDCS was superior to sham regarding endpoint depression scores (k = 25, g = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.70), and also achieved superior response (k = 18, 33.3% vs. 16.56%, OR = 2.28 [1.52-3.42], NNT = 6) and remission (k = 18, 19.12% vs. 9.78%, OR = 2.12 [1.42-3.16], NNT = 10.7) rates. Moreover, active tDCS was as acceptable as sham. No risk of publication bias was identified. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that effect sizes are basically unchanged since total sample reached 439 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

TDCS is modestly effective in treating depressive episodes. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs are warranted.

Different Effects of 2 mA and 4 mA Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Muscle Activity and Torque in a Maximal Isokinetic Fatigue Task

Studies investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on fatigue and muscle activity have elicited measurable improvements using stimulation intensities ≤2 mA and submaximal effort tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of 2 mA and 4 mA anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) on performance fatigability and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the leg muscles during a maximal isokinetic task in healthy young adults. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled crossover study design was applied. Twenty-seven active young adults completed four sessions, each spaced by 5-8 days. During session 1, dominance was verified with isokinetic strength testing, and subjects were familiarized with the fatigue task (FT). The FT protocol included 40 continuous maximum isokinetic contractions of the knee extensors and flexors (120°/s, concentric/concentric). During Sessions 2-4, tDCS was applied for 20 min with one of three randomly assigned intensities (sham, 2 mA or 4 mA) and the FT was repeated. The anode and cathode of the tDCS device were placed over C3 and the contralateral supraorbital area, respectively. A wireless EMG system collected muscle activity during the FT. The 2 mA tDCS condition had significantly less torque (65.9 ± 32.7 Nm) during the FT than both the sham (68.4 ± 33.9 Nm, p < 0.001) and 4 mA conditions (68.4 ± 33.9 Nm, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the 2 mA condition (33.8 ± 11.7%) had significantly less EMG activity during the FT than both the sham (39.7 ± 10.6%, p < 0.001) and 4 mA conditions (40.5 ± 13.4%, p = 0.001). Contrary to previous submaximal isometric fatigue investigations, the 2 mA tDCS condition significantly reduced torque production and EMG activity of the leg extensors during a maximal isokinetic FT compared with the sham and 4 mA conditions. Also, torque production and EMG activity in the 4 mA condition were not significantly different from sham. Thus, the effects of tDCS, and the underlying mechanisms, might not be the same for different tasks and warrants more investigation.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation at 4 mA Induces Greater Leg Muscle Fatigability in Women Compared to Men

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has previously shown different cortical excitability and neuropsychological effects between women and men. However, the sex-specific effects of tDCS on leg muscle fatigability has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a single session of 2 mA and 4 mA primary motor cortex tDCS on leg muscle fatigability in healthy young men and women in a crossover design. Twenty participants (women = 10) completed isokinetic fatigue testing (40 maximal reps, 120°/s) of the knee extensors and flexors in conjunction with sham, 2 mA, and 4 mA tDCS in a double-blind, randomized design. The fatigue index from each condition was calculated. Women had significantly greater knee extensor fatigability in the 4 mA condition compared to men (57.8 ± 6.8% versus 44.1 ± 18.4%; p = 0.041, d = 0.99). This study provides additional evidence that responses to tDCS may be sex-specific and highlights the necessity of accounting and powering for sex differences in future investigations.

Depression in the medically ill

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are significantly more common in the medically ill compared to the general population. Depression is associated with worsening of physical symptoms, greater healthcare utilization and poorer treatment adherence. The present paper provides a critical review on the assessment and management of depression in the medically ill.

METHODS

Relevant articles pertaining to depression in the medically ill were identified, reviewed and synthesized qualitatively. A systematic review was not performed due to the large breadth of this topic, making a meaningful summary of all published and unpublished studies not feasible. Notable studies were reviewed and synthesized by a diverse set of experts to provide a balanced summary.

RESULTS

Depression is frequently under-recognized in medical settings. Differential diagnoses include delirium, personality disorders and depressive disorders secondary to substances, medications or another medical condition. Depressive symptoms in the context of an adjustment disorder should be initially managed by supportive psychological approaches. Once a mild to moderate major depressive episode is identified, a stepped care approach should be implemented, starting with general psychoeducation, psychosocial interventions and ongoing monitoring. For moderate to severe symptoms, or mild symptoms that are not responding to low-intensity interventions, the use of antidepressants or higher intensity psychotherapeutic interventions should be considered. Psychotherapeutic interventions have demonstrated benefits with small to moderate effect sizes. Antidepressant medications have also demonstrated benefits with moderate effect sizes; however, special caution is needed in evaluating side effects, drug-drug interactions as well as dose adjustments due to impairment in hepatic metabolism and/or renal clearance. Novel interventions for the treatment of depression and other illness-related psychological symptoms (e.g. death anxiety, loss of dignity) are under investigation.

LIMITATIONS

Non-systematic review of the literature.

CONCLUSION

Replicated evidence has demonstrated a bidirectional interaction between depression and medical illness. Screening and stepped care using pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions is merited.

Can Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improve Muscle Power in Individuals With Advanced Weight-Training Experience?

Lattari, E, Campos, C, Lamego, MK, Legey, S, Neto, GM, Rocha, NB, Oliveira, AJ, Carpenter, CS, and Machado, S. Can transcranial direct current stimulation improve muscle power in individuals with advanced weight-training experience? J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 97-103, 2020-The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in men with advanced strength-training experience. Ten healthy male subjects with advanced strength training and squatting exercise experience were included. Participants took part in an initial visit to the laboratory to complete anthropometric measurements and CMJ kinematic test-retest reliability. Participants then completed 3 experimental conditions, 48-72 hours apart, in a randomized, double-blinded crossover design: anodal, cathodal, and sham-tDCS (2 mA for 20 minutes targeting the motor cortex bilaterally). Participants completed 3 CMJ tests before and after each experimental condition, with 1-minute recovery interval between each test. The best CMJ in each moment was selected for analysis. Two-way (condition by moment) repeated measures analysis of variance was performed for CMJ height, flight time (FT), and muscular peak power (PP). Effect sizes and interindividual variability of tDCS responses were also analyzed. There was a significant condition by moment interaction for all outcome measures, with a large prepost increase in CMJ height, FT, and PP in the anodal condition. All the participants displayed CMJ performance improvements after the anodal condition. There were no significant differences in both cathodal and sham conditions. Anodal tDCS may be a valuable tool to enhance muscle power-related tasks performance, which is extremely relevant for sports that require vertical jumping ability. Anodal tDCS may also be used to support strength training, enhancing its effects on performance-oriented outcome measures.

Cognitive changes after tDCS and escitalopram treatment in major depressive disorder: Results from the placebo-controlled ELECT-TDCS trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive deficits in major depressive disorder (MDD) are associated with low quality of life and higher suicide risk. Antidepressant drugs have modest to null effects in improving such deficits. Therefore, we investigated the cognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which is a promising antidepressant non-pharmacological intervention, in MDD.

METHODS

An exploratory analysis on cognitive performance was conducted in 243 depressed patients from the Escitalopram vs. Electric Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study (ELECT-TDCS), a sham-controlled study comparing the efficacy of tDCS vs. escitalopram. A neuropsychological battery was applied at baseline and endpoint (10 weeks of treatment) to create composite cognitive scores (processing speed, working memory, and verbal fluency). Linear mixed regression models were used to evaluate changes according to intervention groups, adjusted for confounding variables (age, years of schooling, gender, and benzodiazepine use) and depression improvement.

RESULTS

No cognitive deterioration was observed in any group. Patients receiving tDCS presented reduced practice gains compared to placebo in processing speed. In patients receiving escitalopram vs. placebo and in the subgroup of clinical responders (>50% depression improvement from baseline), those receiving tDCS vs. placebo presented increased performance in verbal fluency. No significant differences between tDCS and escitalopram groups were detected.

LIMITATIONS

Absence of healthy controls.

CONCLUSION

Prefrontal tDCS did not lead to cognitive deficits in depressed patients, although it reduced practice effects in processing speed. tDCS responders presented increased performance in verbal fluency. Further investigation of tDCS cognitive effects in depression is warranted.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: a roadmap for research, from mechanism of action to clinical implementation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising method for altering the function of neural systems, cognition, and behavior. Evidence is emerging that it can also influence psychiatric symptomatology, including major depression and schizophrenia. However, there are many open questions regarding how the method might have such an effect, and uncertainties surrounding its influence on neural activity, and human cognition and functioning. In the present critical review, we identify key priorities for future research into major depression and schizophrenia, including studies of the mechanism(s) of action of tDCS at the neuronal and systems levels, the establishment of the cognitive impact of tDCS, as well as investigations of the potential clinical efficacy of tDCS. We highlight areas of progress in each of these domains, including data that appear to favor an effect of tDCS on neural oscillations rather than spiking, and findings that tDCS administration to the prefrontal cortex during task training may be an effective way to enhance behavioral performance. Finally, we provide suggestions for further empirical study that will elucidate the impact of tDCS on brain and behavior, and may pave the way for efficacious clinical treatments for psychiatric disorders.

Tolerance of transcranial direct current stimulation in psychiatric disorders: An analysis of 2000+ sessions

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive, neuromodulatory technique, is being increasingly applied to several psychiatric disorders. In this study, we describe the side-effect profile of repeated tDCS sessions (N = 2005) that were administered to 171 patients (156 adults and 15 adolescents) with different psychiatric disorders [schizophrenia [N = 109], obsessive-compulsive disorder [N = 28], alcohol dependence syndrome [N = 13], mild cognitive impairment [N = 10], depression [N = 6], dementia [N = 2] and other disorders [N = 3]]. tDCS was administered at a constant current strength of 2 mA with additional ramp-up and ramp-down phase of 20 s each at the beginning and end of the session, respectively. Other tDCS protocol parameters were: schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder: 5-days of twice-daily 20-min sessions with an inter-session interval of 3-h; Mild cognitive impairment/dementia and alcohol dependence syndrome: at least 5-days of once-daily 20-min session; Depression: 10-days of once-daily 30 min session. At the end of each tDCS session, any adverse event observed by the administrator and/or reported by the patient was systematically assessed using a comprehensive questionnaire. The commonly reported adverse events during tDCS included burning sensations (16.2%), skin redness (12.3%), scalp pain (10.1%), itching (6.7%), and tingling (6.3%). Most of the adverse events were noted to be mild, transient and well-tolerated. In summary, our observations suggest that tDCS is a safe mode for therapeutic non-invasive neuromodulation in psychiatric disorders in adults as well as the adolescent population.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Treating Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Negative symptoms represent a substantial burden in schizophrenia. Although preliminary studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is effective for some clusters of symptoms, the clinical benefits for negative symptoms are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS vs sham as an add-on treatment for patients with schizophrenia and predominant negative symptoms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The double-blind Schizophrenia Treatment With Electric Transcranial Stimulation (STARTS) randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2014 to March 2018 in 2 outpatient clinics in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients with schizophrenia with stable negative and positive symptoms and a minimum score of 20 points in the negative symptoms subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Ten sessions of tDCS performed twice a day for 5 days or a sham procedure. The anode and the cathode were positioned over the left prefrontal cortex and the left temporoparietal junction, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at week 6 was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up for an additional 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 100 included patients, 20 (20.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 35.3 (9.3) years. A total of 95 patients (95.0%) finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients receiving active tDCS showed a significantly greater improvement in PANSS score compared with those receiving the sham procedure (difference, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.51-3.79; number needed to treat, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.12-6.99; P < .001). Response rates for negative symptoms (20% improvement or greater) were also higher in the active group (20 of 50 [40%]) vs the sham group (2 of 50 [4%]) (P < .001). These effects persisted at follow-up. Transcranial direct current stimulation was well tolerated, and adverse effects did not differ between groups, except for burning sensation over the scalp in the active group (43.8%) vs the sham group (14.3%) (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Transcranial direct current stimulation was effective and safe in ameliorating negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02535676.

Increased leg muscle fatigability during 2 mA and 4 mA transcranial direct current stimulation over the left motor cortex

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using intensities ≤ 2 mA on physical and cognitive outcomes has been extensively investigated. Studies comparing the effects of different intensities of tDCS have yielded mixed results and little is known about how higher intensities (> 2 mA) affect outcomes. This study examined the effects of tDCS at 2 mA and 4 mA on leg muscle fatigability. This was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study. Sixteen healthy young adults underwent tDCS at three randomly ordered intensities (sham, 2 mA, 4 mA). Leg muscle fatigability of both legs was assessed via isokinetic fatigue testing (40 maximal reps, 120°/s). Torque- and work-derived fatigue indices (FI-T and FI-W, respectively), as well as total work performed (TW), were calculated. FI-T of the right knee extensors indicated increased fatigability in 2 mA and 4 mA compared with sham (p = 0.01, d = 0.73 and p < 0.001, d = 1.61, respectively). FI-W of the right knee extensors also indicated increased fatigability in 2 mA and 4 mA compared to sham (p = 0.01, d = 0.57 and p < 0.001, d = 1.12, respectively) and 4 mA compared with 2 mA (p = 0.034, d = 0.37). tDCS intensity did not affect TW performed. The 2 mA and 4 mA tDCS intensities increased the fatigability of the right knee extensors in young, healthy participants, potentially from altered motor unit recruitment/discharge rate or cortical hyperexcitability. Despite this increase in fatigability, the TW performed in both these conditions was not different from sham.

The Tolerability and Efficacy of 4 mA Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Leg Muscle Fatigability

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates cortical excitability and affects a variety of outcomes. tDCS at intensities ≤2 mA is well-tolerated, but the tolerability and efficacy of tDCS at intensities >2 mA merits systematic investigation. The study objective was to determine the tolerability and effects of 4 mA tDCS on leg muscle fatigability. Thirty-one young, healthy adults underwent two randomly ordered tDCS conditions (sham, 4 mA) applied before and during an isokinetic fatigue test of the knee extensors and flexors. Subjects reported the severity of the sensations felt from tDCS. Primary outcomes were sensation tolerability and the fatigue index of the knee extensors and flexors. A repeated-measures ANOVA determined statistical significance (p < 0.05). Sensation severity at 4 mA tDCS was not substantially different than sham. However, two subjects reported a moderate–severe headache, which dissipated soon after the stimulation ended. The left knee flexors had significantly greater fatigability with 4 mA tDCS compared with sham (p = 0.018). tDCS at 4 mA was well-tolerated by young, healthy subjects and increased left knee flexor fatigability. Exploration of higher intensity tDCS (>2 mA) to determine the potential benefits of increasing intensity, especially in clinical populations with decreased brain activity/excitability, is warranted.

Different Therapeutic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper and Lower Limb Recovery of Stroke Patients with Motor Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

To explore the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the motor recovery of stroke patients and the effect differences between the upper limb and lower limb.

Methods

Randomized control trials published until January 2019 were searched from PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated separately for upper and lower limb motor outcomes to understand the mean effect size.

Results

Twenty-nine studies with 664 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. The overall analyses of tDCS demonstrated significant effect size both for the upper limb (SMD = 0.26, P = 0.002) and the lower limb (SMD = 0.47, P = 0.002). Compared with acute and subacute stroke patients, chronic stroke patients obtained significant effects after tDCS (SMD = 0.25, P = 0.03) in upper limb function. Furthermore, both anode and cathode stimulations produced significant effect size for stroke patients after ≤10 sessions of tDCS (anode: SMD = 0.40, P = 0.001; cathode: SMD = 0.79, P < 0.0001) with >0.029 mA/cm² of density (anode: SMD = 0.46, P = 0.002; cathode: SMD = 0.79, P < 0.0001). But for lower limb function, more prominent effects were found in subacute stroke patients (SMD = 0.56, P = 0.001) with bilateral tDCS (SMD = 0.59, p = 0.009).

Conclusion

tDCS is effective for the recovery of stroke patients with motor dysfunction. In addition, upper limb and lower limb functions obtain distinct effects from different therapeutic parameters of tDCS at different stages, respectively.

Association of BDNF, HTR2A, TPH1, SLC6A4, and COMT polymorphisms with tDCS and escitalopram efficacy: ancillary analysis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with neuroplasticity and activity of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF, rs6265), the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4, rs25531), the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1, rs1800532), the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 2A (HTR2A, rs6311, rs6313, rs7997012), and the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT, rs4680) genes, are associated with efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in major depression.

METHODS

Data from the Escitalopram vs. Electrical Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study (ELECT-TDCS) were used. Participants were antidepressant-free at baseline and presented with an acute, moderate-to-severe unipolar depressive episode. They were randomized to receive escitalopram/tDCS-sham (n=75), tDCS/placebo-pill (n=75), or placebo-pill/sham-tDCS (n=45). General linear models assessed the interaction between treatment group and allele-wise carriers. Additional analyses were performed for each group and each genotype separately.

RESULTS

Pairwise group comparisons (tDCS vs. placebo, tDCS vs. escitalopram, and escitalopram vs. placebo) did not identify alleles associated with depression improvement. In addition, exploratory analyses also did not identify any SNP unequivocally associated with improvement of depression in any treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Larger, combined datasets are necessary to identify candidate genes for tDCS response.

New Directions in the Use of Brain Stimulation Interventions in Patients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a highly disabling condition with early onset and chronic course in most of the affected patients. In addition, OCD may show high comorbidity and suicide attempt rates, which worsen the overall burden of the disease for patients and their caregivers. First-line treatments for OCD consist of pro-serotonergic compounds and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Nonetheless, many patients show only limited benefit from such interventions and require additional "next-step" interventions, including augmentative antipsychotics and glutamate-modulating agents. Based on the knowledge about altered neurocircuitry in OCD, brain stimulation techniques, including transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulations (TMS and tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS), have been increasingly investigated over the last decade, revealing positive results for otherwise intractable and treatment-refractory patients. Available evidence in the field is in continuous evolution and professionals actively involved in the management of OCD patients, psychiatrists in particular, need to be updated about latest developments. Through the analysis of controlled studies, meta-analyses, and International treatment guidelines, the present article is aimed at providing the state of the art on the use of brain stimulation techniques for the treatment of OCD.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Craving in Substance Use Disorders: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in addiction disorders is still on its rise in comparison with pharmacological and psychotherapeutic strategies that still show low level of evidence. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the anodic tDCS for the short-term treatment of substance craving and other psychiatric symptoms.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial, inclusion criteria included the diagnosis of substance use disorder and/or gambling disorder. The protocol includes 5 consecutive days of active or sham tDCS session. Cathode was placed over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, South Oaks Gambling Screen, and visual analog scale (VAS) 1 to 10 for craving were administered at the baseline (T0) and after 5 days of treatment (T1).

RESULTS

Thirty-four treatment-seeking subjects were randomized to sham (n = 16) and active stimulation (n = 18) groups. A statistically significant reduction of values at T1 was found in all subjects considering VAS (P < 0.001), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (P < 0.001), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (P < 0.001), and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11 (P = 0.032). A significant reduction for VAS craving in favor of the active stimulation (P = 0.011) was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal a statistically significant rapid reduction of craving in the active tDCS group on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with respect to sham group, confirming the scientific literature trend. Large samples, with maintenance tDCS therapy and long-term follow-up, are required to establish the potential of this noninvasive and easily delivered brain stimulation strategy.

Adaptive current tDCS up to 4 mA

BACKGROUND

Higher tDCS current may putatively enhance efficacy, with tolerability the perceived limiting factor.

OBJECTIVE

We designed and validated electrodes and an adaptive controller to provide tDCS up to 4 mA, while managing tolerability. The adaptive 4 mA controller included incremental ramp up, impedance-based current limits, and a Relax-mode where current is transiently decreased. Relax-mode was automatically activated by self-report VAS-pain score >5 and in some conditions by a Relax-button available to participants.

METHODS

In a parallel-group participant-blind design with 50 healthy subjects, we used specialized electrodes to administer 3 daily session of tDCS for 11 min, with a lexical decision task as a distractor, in 5 study conditions: adaptive 4 mA, adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button, adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button, 2 mA, and sham. A tablet-based stimulator with a participant interface regularly queried VAS pain score and also limited current based on impedance and tolerability. An Abort-button provided in all conditions stopped stimulation. In the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button conditions, participants could trigger a Relax-mode ad libitum, in the latter case with incrementally longer current reductions. Primary outcome was the average current delivered during each session, VAS pain score, and adverse event questionnaires. Current delivered was analyzed either excluding or including dropouts who activated Abort (scored as 0 current).

RESULTS

There were two dropouts each in the adaptive 4 mA and sham conditions. Resistance based current attenuation was rarely activated, with few automatic VAS pain score triggered relax-modes. In conditions with Relax-button option, there were significant activations often irrespective of VAS pain score. Including dropouts, current across conditions were significantly different from each other with maximum current delivered during adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button. Excluding dropouts, maximum current was delivered with adaptive 4 mA. VAS pain score and adverse events for the sham was only significantly lower than the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button. There was no difference in VAS pain score or adverse events between 2 mA and adaptive 4 mA.

CONCLUSIONS

Provided specific electrodes and controllers, adaptive 4 mA tDCS is tolerated and effectively blinded, with acceptability likely higher in a clinical population and absence of regular querying. Indeed, presenting participants with overt controls increases rumination on sensation.

Telerehabilitation benefits patients with multiple sclerosis in an urban setting

INTRODUCTION

People living with multiple sclerosis (MS) often require rehabilitation to manage their symptoms. Telerehabilitation offers improved access to treatment options by reducing travel time and cost. Our telerehabilitation program pairs training exercises simultaneously with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. In the current study, we characterized the benefits of our remotely supervised tDCS (RS-tDCS) at-home telerehabilitation protocol in an urban sample of MS participants.

METHODS

Participants with MS were recruited to complete a telerehabilitation trial using tDCS paired with cognitive rehabilitation at-home using remote supervision (RS-tDCS). Participant time and travel costs for study visits to our clinic in midtown New York City were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients with MS (aged 18 to 71) with mild to severe neurologic disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale score median = 3.5, range: 0.0 to 8.0) completed the survey. Round-trip clinic attendance required 2.3 ± 2.3 h and US $27.04 ± 38.13 for out-of-pocket expenses. Participants rated difficulty of clinic attendance as moderately to significantly difficult (2.5 ± 1.3). Severity of neurologic disability accounted for the greatest variance in difficulty attending clinic (30%, p < 0.001). RS-tDCS had 95% treatment compliance and 93% of participants reported satisfaction with the at-home treatment.

DISCUSSION

Attending clinic is associated with significant costs for patients with neurologic disorders, even in urban settings. Rehabilitation can be delivered at home and supervised in real-time via videoconference.

Pilot trial of home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, neuromodulation approach with promising efficacy for treating depression. To date, tDCS has been limited to clinical or research centre settings with treatment administered by staff. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy, tolerability and feasibility of home-administered, remotely-supervised tDCS for depression.

METHODS

In an open label trial, 34 participants used a Soterix 1 × 1 mini-CT device to self-administer 20-28 tDCS sessions (2 mA, 30 min, F3-anode and F8-cathode montage according to 10-20 EEG placement) over 4 weeks followed by a taper phase of 4 sessions 1 week apart. Participants were initially monitored via video link and then through completion of an online treatment diary. Mixed effects repeated measures analyses assessed change in mood scores.

RESULTS

Mood improved significantly from baseline (27.47 on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) to 1 month after the end of acute treatment (15.48) (p < 0.001). Side effects were largely transient and minor. Outcomes were comparable to those reported in clinic-based trials. Protocol adherence was excellent with a drop-out rate of 6% and 93% of scheduled sessions completed.

LIMITATIONS

The tDCS and remote monitoring procedures employed in this study require a level of manual dexterity and computer literacy, which may be challenging for some patients. This study did not have a control condition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides initial evidence that home-based, remotely-supervised tDCS treatment may be efficacious and feasible for depressed patients and has high translational potential.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex on Reaction Time and Tapping Performance: A Comparison Between Athletes and Non-athletes

Recent studies provided compelling evidence that physical activity leads to specific changes on a functional and structural level of brain organization. The observed neural adaptions are specific to the sport and manifested in those brain regions which are associated with neuronal processing of sport-specific skills. Techniques of non-invasive brain stimulation have been shown to induce neuroplastic changes and thereby also facilitate task performance. In the present study, we investigated the influence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the leg area of the primary motor cortex (M1) on simple reaction time tasks (RTT) and tapping tasks (TT) as a comparison between trained football (FB) and handball players (HB) and non-athletes (NA). We hypothesized that anodal tDCS over M1 (leg area) would lead to specific behavioral gains in RTT and TT performance of the lower extremity as compared to sham condition. On an exploratory level, we aimed at revealing if trained athletes would show stronger tDCS-induced behavioral gains as compared to NA, and, furthermore, if there are any differential effects between FB and HB. A total number of 46 participants were enrolled in a sham-controlled, double-blinded, cross-over study. A test block consisting of RTT and TT was performed before, during, after as well as 30 min after a 20-min tDCS application. Additionally, the specificity of tDCS-induced changes was examined by testing upper extremity using the same experimental design as a control condition. Our data showed no group- or sport-specific tDCS-induced effects (online and offline) on RTT and TT neither for lower nor upper extremities. These findings indicate that neither athletes nor NA seems to benefit from a brief period of tDCS application in speed-related motor tasks. However, more knowledge on neuronal processing of RTT and TT performance in trained athletes, the influence of tDCS parameters including stimulation sites, and the effect of inter-individual differences are required in order to draw a comprehensive picture of whether tDCS can help to enhance motor abilities on a high-performance level.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left prefrontal cortex does not affect time-trial self-paced cycling performance: Evidence from oscillatory brain activity and power output

Objectives

To test the hypothesis that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) influences performance in a 20-min time-trial self-paced exercise and electroencephalographic (EEG) oscillatory brain activity in a group of trained male cyclists.

Design

The study consisted of a pre-registered (https://osf.io/rf95j/), randomised, sham-controlled, single-blind, within-subject design experiment.

Methods

36 trained male cyclists, age 27 (6.8) years, weight 70.1 (9.5) Kg; VO_2max: 54 (6.13) ml.min^-1.kg^-1, Maximal Power output: 4.77 (0.6) W/kg completed a 20-min time-trial self-paced exercise in three separate sessions, corresponding to three stimulation conditions: anodal, cathodal and sham. tDCS was administered before each test during 20-min at a current intensity of 2.0 mA. The anode electrode was placed over the DLPFC and the cathode in the contralateral shoulder. In each session, power output, heart rate, sRPE and EEG (at baseline and during exercise) was measured.

Results

There were no differences (F = 0.31, p > 0.05) in power output between the stimulation conditions: anodal (235 W [95%CI 222–249 W]; cathodal (235 W [95%CI 222–248 W] and sham (234 W [95%CI 220–248 W]. Neither heart rate, sRPE nor EEG activity were affected by tDCS (all Ps > 0.05).

Conclusion

tDCS over the left DLFC did not affect self-paced exercise performance in trained cyclists. Moreover, tDCS did not elicit any change on oscillatory brain activity either at baseline or during exercise. Our data suggest that the effects of tDCS on endurance performance should be taken with caution.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the safety and effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) interventions in pediatric motor disorders.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to August 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

tDCS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, conference proceedings, and dissertations in pediatric motor disorders were included. Two authors independently screened articles based on predefined inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data related to participant demographics, intervention, and outcomes were extracted by 2 authors. Quality assessment was independently performed by 2 authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 studies involving a total of 391 participants were included. There was no difference in dropout rates between active (1 of 144) and sham (1 of 144) tDCS groups, risk difference 0.0, 95% confidence interval (-.05 to .04). Across studies, the most common adverse effects in the active group were tingling (17.2%), discomfort (8.02%), itching (6.79%), and skin redness (4%). Across 3 studies in children with cerebral palsy, tDCS significantly improved gait velocity (MD=.23; 95% confidence interval [0.13-0.34]; P<.0005), stride length (MD=0.10; 95% confidence interval [0.05-0.15]; P<.0005), and cadence (MD=15.7; 95% confidence interval [9.72-21.68]; P<.0005). Mixed effects were found on balance, upper extremity function, and overflow movements in dystonia.

CONCLUSION

Based on the studies reviewed, tDCS is a safe technique in pediatric motor disorders and may improve some gait measures and involuntary movements. Research to date in pediatric motor disorders shows limited effectiveness in improving balance and upper extremity function. tDCS may serve as a potential adjunct to pediatric rehabilitation; to better understand if tDCS is beneficial for pediatric motor disorders, more well-designed RCTs are needed.

Physics of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Devices and Their History

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) devices apply direct current through electrodes on the scalp with the intention to modulate brain function for experimental or clinical purposes. All tDCS devices include a current controlled stimulator, electrodes that include a disposable electrolyte, and headgear to position the electrodes on the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation dose can be defined by the size and position of electrodes and the duration and intensity of current applied across electrodes. Electrode design and preparation are important for reproducibility and tolerability. High-definition tDCS uses smaller electrodes that can be arranged in arrays to optimize brain current flow. When intended to be used at home, tDCS devices require specific device design considerations. Computational models of current flow have been validated and support optimization and hypothesis testing. Consensus on the safety and tolerability of tDCS is protocol specific, but medical-grade tDCS devices minimize risk.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Acute Depressive Episode: A Systematic Review of Current Knowledge

Major depressive disorder is a severe, refractory mental disorder. Only one third of patients treated with antidepressants achieve remission after 3 trials, while subject to adverse effects. Therefore, the investigation of alternative treatments is paramount. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the most recent evidence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) intervention for the acute phase of major depressive disorder. A PubMed search was performed including the terms "transcranial direct current stimulation" OR "transcranial direct stimulation" OR "tDCS" AND "major depressive disorder" OR "major depression" OR "depression" AND "trial." The search was conducted from inception until February 2018. Our search yielded initially 165 results, and 14 randomized clinical trials were included according to eligibility criteria. Most studies were pilot studies, with mixed findings. Two large randomized clinical trials recently published also presented primary negative findings. Study protocols usually used anodal left/cathodal right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation, 1 to 2.5 mA, and 5 to 20 tDCS sessions. We discuss the limitations of the included trials, such as sample and tDCS parameters heterogeneity between studies. To conclude, tDCS seems to be safe and devoid of serious adverse effects, although robust efficacy has not been consistently demonstrated in clinical trials assessing an acute treatment course of up to 4 weeks. Further directions are discussed, such as parameter individualization, investigation of biological markers, and home-use tDCS.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

Dry tDCS: Tolerability of a novel multilayer hydrogel composite non-adhesive electrode for transcranial direct current stimulation

BACKGROUND

The adoption of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is encouraged by portability and ease-of-use. However, the preparation of tDCS electrodes remains the most cumbersome and error-prone step. Here, we validate the performance of the first "dry" electrodes for tDCS. A "dry electrode" excludes 1) any saline or other electrolytes, that are prone to spread and leaving a residue; 2) any adhesive at the skin interface; or 3) any electrode preparation steps except the connection to the stimulator. The Multilayer Hydrogel Composite (MHC) dry-electrode design satisfied these criteria.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Over an exposed scalp (supraorbital (SO) regions of forehead), we validated the performance of the first "dry" electrode for tDCS against the state-of-the-art conventional wet sponge-electrode to test the hypothesis that whether tDCS can be applied with a dry electrode with comparable tolerability as conventional "wet" techniques?

METHODS

MHC dry-electrode performance was verified using a skin-phantom, including mapping voltage at the phantom surface and mapping current inside the electrode using a novel biocompatible flexible printed circuit board current sensor matrix (fPCB-CSM). MHC dry-electrode performance was validated in a human trial including tolerability (VAS and adverse events), skin redness (erythema), and electrode current mapping with the fPCB-CSM. Experimental data from skin-phantom stimulation were compared against a finite element method (FEM) model.

RESULTS

Under the tested conditions (1.5 mA and 2 mA tDCS for 20 min using MHC-dry and sponge-electrode), the tolerability was improved, and the erythema and adverse-events were comparable between the MHC dry-electrode and the state-of-the-art sponge electrodes.

CONCLUSION

Dry (residue-free, non-spreading, non-adhesive, and no-preparation-needed) electrodes can be tolerated under the tested tDCS conditions, and possibly more broadly used in non-invasive electrical stimulation.

Adjunct transcranial direct current stimulation improves cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia: A double-blind 12-week study

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive impairment is a common symptom of schizophrenia that has significant effects on quality of life and the activities of daily living. The present study examined the ability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognitive function and clinical symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients with schizophrenia were randomized to real-tDCS and sham-tDCS groups. The participants were stable for a period of 3months before study enrollment. Each group received 30min of active 2-mA tDCS or sham stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (anode F3, cathode F4) once per day for 10 consecutive weekdays. The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) were used to evaluate cognitive function, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale (CGI-SCH), and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) were used to evaluate symptoms at baseline, after 10 sessions, and at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

There was a significant time×group interaction, indicating that MCCB working memory (P=0.008) and overall scores (P=0.031) improved over time in the real-tDCS group compared to the sham-tDCS group. There was also a significant time×group interaction for depressive symptoms as evaluated by the CGI-SCH, which decreased over time in the real-tDCS group (P=0.041). tDCS treatment combined with antipsychotic medication was generally well-tolerated and safe.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunct tDCS treatment is safe and effective for improving cognitive status in patients with schizophrenia.

Tolerability and blinding of 4x1 high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) at two and three milliamps

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an in-demand form of neuromodulation generally regarded as safe and well tolerated. However, few studies have examined the safety, tolerability, or blinding of High Definition (HD-) tDCS, especially in older adults and at stimulation intensities of 2 milliamps (mA) or greater.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the rates of serious adverse events and common side effects to establish safety and tolerability, respectively, in HD-tDCS. Blinding was evaluated using participants' accuracy in correctly stating their condition (i.e., active or sham).

METHODS

The sample included 101 older adults (M_age = 69.69, SD = 8.33; M_educ = 16.27, SD = 2.42) who participated in our double blind randomized controlled studies or in case studies that used HD-tDCS for 20-30 min at 2 mA (n = 66, 31 active) or 3 mA (n = 35, 20 active). Participants completed a standardized side effect questionnaire and were asked whether they received active or sham stimulation at the end of each session.

RESULTS

There were no serious adverse events and no participants withdrew, suggesting that HD-tDCS meets basic safety parameters. Tolerability was comparable between active and sham HD-tDCS regardless of intensity (2 mA and 3 mA) in first session (allp > .09). Tingling was the most commonly endorsed item (59% active; 56% sham) followed by burning sensation (51% active; 50% sham), the majority of which were mild in nature. "Severe" ratings were reported in fewer than 4% of sessions. Blinding appeared adequate since there were no significant group differences between individuals correctly stating their stimulation condition (χ2 = 0.689, p = .679). The above tolerability and blinding findings generally persisted when multiple session data (i.e., 186 total sessions) were considered.

CONCLUSIONS

HD-tDCS appears well-tolerated and safe with effective sham-control in older adults, even at 3 mA. These data support the use of HD-tDCS in randomized controlled trials and clinical translation efforts.

Rigor and reproducibility in research with transcranial electrical stimulation: An NIMH-sponsored workshop

BACKGROUND

Neuropsychiatric disorders are a leading source of disability and require novel treatments that target mechanisms of disease. As such disorders are thought to result from aberrant neuronal circuit activity, neuromodulation approaches are of increasing interest given their potential for manipulating circuits directly. Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) with direct currents (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) or alternating currents (transcranial alternating current stimulation, tACS) represent novel, safe, well-tolerated, and relatively inexpensive putative treatment modalities.

OBJECTIVE

This report seeks to promote the science, technology and effective clinical applications of these modalities, identify research challenges, and suggest approaches for addressing these needs in order to achieve rigorous, reproducible findings that can advance clinical treatment.

METHODS

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a workshop in September 2016 that brought together experts in basic and human neuroscience, electrical stimulation biophysics and devices, and clinical trial methods to examine the physiological mechanisms underlying tDCS/tACS, technologies and technical strategies for optimizing stimulation protocols, and the state of the science with respect to therapeutic applications and trial designs.

RESULTS

Advances in understanding mechanisms, methodological and technological improvements (e.g., electronics, computational models to facilitate proper dosing), and improved clinical trial designs are poised to advance rigorous, reproducible therapeutic applications of these techniques. A number of challenges were identified and meeting participants made recommendations made to address them.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations align with requirements in NIMH funding opportunity announcements to, among other needs, define dosimetry, demonstrate dose/response relationships, implement rigorous blinded trial designs, employ computational modeling, and demonstrate target engagement when testing stimulation-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorders.

Modulation of Electrophysiology by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique increasingly used to relieve symptoms of psychiatric disorders. Electrophysiologic markers, such as electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERP), have high temporal resolution sensitive to detect plastic changes of the brain associated with symptomatic improvement following tDCS application.

METHODS

We performed systematic review to identify electrophysiological markers that reflect tDCS effects on plastic brain changes in psychiatric disorders. A total of 638 studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, psychINFPO. Of these, 21 full-text articles were assessed eligible and included in the review.

RESULTS

Although the reviewed studies were heterogeneous in their choices of tDCS protocols, targeted electrophysiological markers, and disease entities, their results strongly support EEG/ERPs to sensitively reflect plastic brain changes and the associated symptomatic improvement following tDCS.

CONCLUSION

EEG/ERPs may serve a potent tool in revealing the mechanisms underlying psychiatric symptoms, as well as in localizing the brain area targeted for stimulation. Future studies in each disease entities employing consistent tDCS protocols and electrophysiological markers would be necessary in order to substantiate and further elaborate the findings of studies included in the present systematic review.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Add-on Treatment for Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

More effective, tolerable interventions for bipolar depression treatment are needed. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel therapeutic modality with few severe adverse events that showed promising results for unipolar depression.

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial (the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial [BETTER]) was conducted from July 1, 2014, to March 30, 2016, at an outpatient, single-center academic setting. Participants included 59 adults with type I or II bipolar disorder in a major depressive episode and receiving a stable pharmacologic regimen with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) scores higher than 17. Data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat sample.

Interventions

Ten daily 30-minute, 2-mA, anodal-left and cathodal-right prefrontal sessions of active or sham tDCS on weekdays and then 1 session every fortnight until week 6.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in HDRS-17 scores at week 6.

Results

Fifty-nine patients (40 [68%] women), with a mean (SD) age of 45.9 (12) years participated; 36 (61%) with bipolar I and 23 (39%) with bipolar II disorder were randomized and 52 finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the active tDCS condition showed significantly superior improvement compared with those receiving sham (βint = -1.68; number needed to treat, 5.8; 95% CI, 3.3-25.8; P = .01). Cumulative response rates were higher in the active vs sham groups (67.6% vs 30.4%; number needed to treat, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.84-4.99; P = .01), but not remission rates (37.4% vs 19.1%; number needed to treat, 5.46; 95% CI, 3.38-14.2; P = .18). Adverse events, including treatment-emergent affective switches, were similar between groups, except for localized skin redness that was higher in the active group (54% vs 19%; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial, tDCS was an effective, safe, and tolerable add-on intervention for this small bipolar depression sample. Further trials should examine tDCS efficacy in a larger sample.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152878.