Transcranial DC Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: Optimized Cortical Target Supported by High-Resolution Computational Models

Safety and feasibility of optimized transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: a multicenter study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may effectively preserve and improve cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Research has shown that Individual brain characteristics can influence the effects of tDCS. Computer three-dimensional brain modeling based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been suggested as an alternative for determining the most accurate tDCS electrode position based on the patients' individual brain characteristics to enhance tDCS effects. Therefore, this study aims to determine the feasibility and safety of applying tDCS treatment using optimized and personalized tDCS electrode positions in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD)-induced MCI using computer modeling and compare the results with those of a sham group to improve cognitive function.

Method

A prospective active-sham group feasibility study was set to recruit 40 participants, who will be randomized into Optimized-tDCS and Sham-tDCS groups. The parameters for tDCS will be 2 mA (disk electrodes R = 1.5 cm) for 30 min during two sets of 15 sessions (2 weeks of resting period in between), using two electrodes in pairs. Using computer modeling, the tDCS electrode positions of each participant will be personalized. Outcome measurements are going to be obtained at three points: baseline, first post-test, and second post-test. The AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE), together with other secondary outcomes and safety tests will be used.

Discussion

For the present study, we hypothesize that compared to a sham group, the optimized personalized tDCS application would be effective in improving the cognitive function of patients with AD-induced MCI and the participants would tolerate the tDCS intervention without any significant adverse effects.Clinical trial registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr, identifier [KCT0008918].

Efficacy of neuromodulation on the treatment of fibromyalgia: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several types of neuromodulation have been investigated for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but they show varied efficacy on pain, functioning, comorbid depression and comorbid anxiety. Whether some types of neuromodulation or some factors are associated with a better response also awaits clarification.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of neuromodulation in patients with fibromyalgia. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO before March 2022. We employed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty trials involving 1541 participants were included. Compared with sham control interventions, several types of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) were associated with significant reduction of pain, depression, anxiety, and improvement in functioning. Many significantly effective treatment options involve stimulation of the primary motor cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that several types of rTMS, tDCS and tRNS may have the potential to be applied for clinical purposes.

Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of fibromyalgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To update a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for analgesia, for antidepressant effects, and to reduce the impact of fibromyalgia (FM), looking for optimal areas of stimulation.

METHODS

We searched five databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing active and sham tDCS for FM. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcome measures included FM Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and depression score. Meta-analysis was conducted using standardized mean difference (SMD). Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the effects of different regional stimulation, over the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), opercular-insular cortex (OIC), and occipital nerve (ON) regions. We analyzed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by the value of the mean difference (MD) for an 11-point scale for pain, the Beck Depressive Inventory-II (BDI-II), and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score. We described the certainty of the evidence (COE) using the tool GRADE profile.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the analysis. Active tDCS had a positive effect on pain (SMD= -1.04; 95 % CI -1.38 to -0.69), depression (SMD= -0.46; 95 % CI -0.64 to -0.29), FIQ (SMD= -0.73; 95 % CI -1.09 to -0.36), COE is moderate. Only group M1 (SD=-1.57) and DLPFC (SD=-1.44) could achieve MCID for analgesia; For BDI-II, only group DLPFC (SD=-5.36) could achieve an MCID change. Adverse events were mild.

CONCLUSION

tDCS is a safe intervention that relieves pain intensity, reduces depression, and reduces the impact of FM on life. Achieving an MCID is related to the stimulation site and the target symptom.

Mechanisms of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for pain in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a recurrent pain condition that can be challenging to treat. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has become a promising non-invasive therapeutic option in alleviating FMS pain, but the mechanisms underlying its effectiveness are not yet fully understood. In this article, we discuss the most current research investigating the analgesic effects of tDCS on FMS and discuss the potential mechanisms. TDCS may exert its analgesic effects by influencing neuronal activity in the brain, altering cortical excitability, changing regional cerebral blood flow, modulating neurotransmission and neuroinflammation, and inducing neuroplasticity. Overall, evidence points to tDCS as a potentially safe and efficient pain relief choice for FMS by multiple underlying mechanisms. This article provides a thorough overview of our ongoing knowledge regarding the mechanisms underlying tDCS and emphasizes the possibility of further studies to improve the clinical utility of tDCS as a pain management tool.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Level and Disability of Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials with Parallel-Group Design

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been increasingly applied in fibromyalgia (FM) to reduce pain and fatigue. While results are promising, observed effects are variable, and there are questions about optimal stimulation parameters such as target region (e.g., motor vs. prefrontal cortices). This systematic review aimed to provide the latest update on published randomized controlled trials with a parallel-group design to examine the specific effects of active tDCS in reducing pain and disability in FM patients. Using the PRISMA approach, a literature search identified 14 randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of tDCS on pain and fatigue in patients with FM. Assessment of biases shows an overall low-to-moderate risk of bias. tDCS was found effective in all included studies conducted in patients with FM, except one study, in which the improving effects of tDCS were due to placebo. We recommended tDCS over the motor and prefrontal cortices as "effective" and "probably effective" respectively, and also safe for reducing pain perception and fatigue in patients with FM, according to evidence-based guidelines. Stimulation polarity was anodal in all studies, and one single-session study also examined cathodal polarity. The stimulation intensity ranged from 1-mA (7.14% of studies) to 1.5-mA (7.14% of studies) and 2-mA (85.7% of studies). In all of the included studies, a significant improvement in at least one outcome variable (pain or fatigue reduction) was observed. Moreover, 92.8% (13 of 14) applied multi-session tDCS protocols in FM treatment and reported significant improvement in their outcome variables. While tDCS is therapeutically effective for FM, titration studies that systematically evaluate different stimulation intensities, durations, and electrode placement are needed.

The effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) on pain intensity of patients with fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise as a potential treatment for FM by modulating pain perception and reducing symptoms, such as fatigue and depression. We aimed to systematically review studies that assess the effect of tDCS on pain reduction in FM patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL Complete) were searched for records in English. Studies that measured the effect of tDCS on pain intensity in FM patients were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A random-effect model was preferred, and statistical analysis was performed by Stata software version 17.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included for qualitative, and eleven for quantitative analysis. Out of 664 patients included in the study, 443 were in the stimulation group. The left M1 area was the most common stimulation target (n = 12), and 2 mA was the most common stimulation amplitude (n = 19). The analysis showed that active tDCS significantly reduced pain intensity in FM patients in comparison to the sham group (SMD= -1.55; 95% CI -2.10, -0.99); also, no publication bias was noted.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review highlights the potential effect of tDCS on the reduction of pain intensity in FM patients. Additionally, this current evidence could suggest that tDCS applied at an intensity of 2mA to the left M1 is the most effective strategy.

Monopolar tDCS might affect brainstem reflexes: A computational and neurophysiological study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether monopolar multi-electrode transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) montages might selectively affect deep brain structures through computational predictions and neurophysiological assessment.

METHODS

Electric field distribution in deep brain structures (i.e., thalamus and midbrain) were estimated through computational models simulating tDCS with two monopolar and two monopolar multi-electrode montages. Monopolar multi-electrode tDCS was then applied to healthy subject, and effects on pontine and medullary circuitries was evaluated studying changes in blink reflex (BR) and masseter inhibitory reflex (MIR).

RESULTS

Computational results suggest that tDCS with monopolar multi-electrode montages might induce electric field intensities in deep brain structure comparable to those in grey matter, while neurophysiological results disclosed that BR and MIR were selectively modulated by tDCS only when cathode was placed over the right deltoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-electrode tDCS (anodes over motor cortices, cathode over right deltoid) could induce significant electric fields in the thalamus and midbrain, and selectively affect brainstem neural circuits.

SIGNIFICANCE

Multi-electrode tDCS (anodes over motor cortices, cathode over right deltoid) might be further explored to affect brainstem activity, also in the context of non-invasive deep brain stimulation.

Treating fibromyalgia with electrical neuromodulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several types of electrical neuromodulation (such as transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS; transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) have been applied in the treatment of fibromyalgia. These trials had different outcome measurements, such as subjective pain, pain threshold, depression, anxiety, and functioning. We intended to integrate data from different trials into a meta-analysis to clearly present the clinical value of electrical neuromodulation in fibromyalgia.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of all types of electrical neuromodulation in patients with fibromyalgia was conducted. The main outcome was subjective pain; the secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, and functioning.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies and 1061 fibromyalgia patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Active electrical neuromodulation and active tDCS both showed significant effects on subjective pain, depression, and functioning. For different anode tDCS electrode positions, only F3-F4 revealed a significant effect on depression. Meta-regression tDCS effects on depression were significantly associated with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical neuromodulation is significantly effective in treating pain, depression, and functioning in patients with fibromyalgia.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results may help clinicians to arrange effective treatment plans for patients with fibromyalgia, especially in those patients who reveal limited response to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Review of individualized current flow modeling studies for transcranial electrical stimulation

There is substantial intersubject variability of behavioral and neurophysiological responses to transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), which represents one of the most important limitations of tES. Many tES protocols utilize a fixed experimental parameter set disregarding individual anatomical and physiological properties. This one-size-fits-all approach might be one reason for the observed interindividual response variability. Simulation of current flow applying head models based on available anatomical data can help to individualize stimulation parameters and contribute to the understanding of the causes of this response variability. Current flow modeling can be used to retrospectively investigate the characteristics of tES effectivity. Previous studies examined, for example, the impact of skull defects and lesions on the modulation of current flow and demonstrated effective stimulation intensities in different age groups. Furthermore, uncertainty analysis of electrical conductivities in current flow modeling indicated the most influential tissue compartments. Current flow modeling, when used in prospective study planning, can potentially guide stimulation configurations resulting in individually effective tES. Specifically, current flow modeling using individual or matched head models can be employed by clinicians and scientists to, for example, plan dosage in tES protocols for individuals or groups of participants. We review studies that show a relationship between the presence of behavioral/neurophysiological responses and features derived from individualized current flow models. We highlight the potential benefits of individualized current flow modeling.

Non-Invasive Electric and Magnetic Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia

Although fibromyalgia is defined by its core muscular nociceptive component, it also includes multiple dysfunctions that involve the musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, immune, endocrine, as well as the central and peripheral nervous systems, amongst others. The pathogenic involvement of the nervous system and the numerous neurological and neuroinflammatory symptoms of this disease may benefit from neuromodulatory stimulation techniques that have been shown to be effective and safe in diverse nervous system pathologies. In this systematic review, we outline current evidence showing the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, such as therapeutic strategies in fibromyalgia. In addition, we evaluate the contribution of these tools to the exploration of the neurophysiological characteristics of fibromyalgia. Considering that the pathogenesis of this disease is unknown, these approaches do not aim to causally treat this syndrome, but to significantly reduce a range of key symptoms and thus improve the quality of life of the patients.

Effects of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Cortex on the Pain Thresholds: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of existing clinical studies used active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over superficial areas of the pain neuromatrix to regulate pain, with conflicting results. Few studies have investigated the effect of tDCS on pain thresholds by focusing on targets in deep parts of the pain neuromatrix.

METHODS

This study applied a single session of high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) targeting the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and used a parallel and sham-controlled design to compare the antinociceptive effects in healthy individuals by assessing changes in pain thresholds. Sixty-six female individuals (mean age, 20.5 ± 2.4 years) were randomly allocated into the anodal, cathodal, or sham HD-tDCS groups. The primary outcome of the study was pain thresholds (pressure pain threshold, heat pain threshold, and cold pain threshold), which were evaluated before and after stimulation through the use of quantitative sensory tests.

RESULTS

Only cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC significantly increased heat pain threshold (P < 0.05) and pressure pain threshold (P < 0.01) in healthy individuals compared with sham stimulation. Neither anodal nor cathodal HD-tDCS showed significant analgesic effects on cold pain threshold. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in pain thresholds between anodal and sham HD-tDCS (P > 0.38). Independent of HD-tDCS protocols, the positive and negative affective schedule scores were decreased immediately after stimulation compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has found that cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC provided a strong antinociceptive effect (increase in pain threshold), demonstrating a positive biological effect of HD-tDCS.

Targeted neurorehabilitation strategies in post-stroke aphasia

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is a debilitating language impairment, affecting millions of people worldwide. About 40% of stroke survivors develop chronic aphasia, resulting in life-long disability.

OBJECTIVE

This review examines extrinsic and intrinsic neuromodulation techniques, aimed at enhancing the effects of speech and language therapies in stroke survivors with aphasia.

METHODS

We discuss the available evidence supporting the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and functional MRI (fMRI) real-time neurofeedback in aphasia rehabilitation.

RESULTS

This review systematically evaluates studies focusing on efficacy and implementation of specialized methods for post-treatment outcome optimization and transfer to functional skills. It considers stimulation target determination and various targeting approaches. The translation of neuromodulation interventions to clinical practice is explored, emphasizing generalization and functional communication. The review also covers real-time fMRI neurofeedback, discussing current evidence for efficacy and essential implementation parameters. Finally, we address future directions for neuromodulation research in aphasia.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive review aims to serve as a resource for a broad audience of researchers and clinicians interested in incorporating neuromodulation for advancing aphasia care.

Active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improved quality of life in female patients with fibromyalgia

PURPOSE

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain syndrome with a strong impact on quality of life (QoL). Treatment of this condition remains a challenge, due to the scarce evidence for the effectiveness of the therapeutic approaches available. Current attention is focused on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has yielded promising results for pain treatment. Rather than focusing only on pain relief, in this study, we aimed to determine how active or sham tDCS (over three cortical targets -the primary motor cortex, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the operculo-insular cortex-) affect QoL in patients with FM.

METHODS

Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, we applied fifteen tDCS sessions of 20' to initial 130 participants (randomized to any of the four treatment groups). We evaluated the QoL (assessed by SF-36) and the symptoms' impact (assessed by FIQ-R) in baseline, after treatment and at 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

All groups were comparable as regards age, medication pattern and severity of symptoms before the treatment. We found that QoL and symptoms' impact improved in all treatment groups (including the sham) and this improvement lasted for up to 6 months. However, we did not observe any group effect nor group*treatment interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

After the intervention, we observed a non-specific effect that may be due to placebo, favoured by the expectations of tDCS efficacy and psychosocial variables inherent to the intervention (daily relationship with therapists and other patients in the clinic). Therefore, active tDCS is not superior to sham stimulation in improving QoL in FM.

Transcranial direct current stimulation of 3 cortical targets is no more effective than placebo as treatment for fibromyalgia: a double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seem to improve pain and other symptoms of fibromyalgia (FM), although the evidence on the effectiveness of tDCS and the optimal stimulation target is not robust enough. Our main objective was to establish the optimal area of stimulation, comparing the 2 classical targets and a novel pain-related area, the operculo-insular cortex, in a sham-controlled trial. Using a double-blind design, we randomly assigned 130 women with FM to 4 treatment groups (M1, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, operculo-insular cortex, and sham), each receiving fifteen 20-minute sessions of 2 mA anodal tDCS over the left hemisphere. Our primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were the other core symptoms of FM (fatigue, mood, cognitive and sleep disorders, and hyperalgesia measured by the pressure pain threshold). We performed the assessment at 3 time points (before, immediately after treatment, and at 6 months follow-up). The linear mixed-model analysis of variances showed significant treatment effects across time for clinical pain and for fatigue, cognitive and sleep disturbances, and experimental pain, irrespective of the group. In mood, the 3 active tDCS groups showed a significantly larger improvement in anxiety and depression than sham. Our findings provide evidence of a placebo effect, support the use of tDCS for the treatment of affective symptoms, and challenge the effectiveness of tDCS as treatment of FM.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Left Primary Motor Cortex on Verbal Intelligence

Previous studies have shown that changes in gray matter density and volume in the left primary motor cortex are significantly associated with changes in individuals’ verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ), but not with their performance intelligence quotient (PIQ). In the present study, we examined the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left primary motor cortex on performance in intelligence tests. We chose four subtests (two each for VIQ and PIQ) of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Chinese Revised version and randomized participants into anodal, cathodal, and sham groups. We found that anodal stimulation significantly improved performance in verbal intelligence subtests compared to cathodal and sham stimulation, while performance intelligence subtest scores did not change in any stimulation condition. These findings suggest that the excitation level of the left primary motor cortex has a unique effect on verbal intelligence.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with exercising in people with fibromyalgia: a randomiSed sham-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with exercising in people with fibromyalgia.

DESIGN

Randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled, clinical trial.

SETTING

Primary healthcare center.

PARTICIPANTS

120 volunteer subjects between 18 and 65 years old and diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Four subjects dropped out of the study for causes unrelated to the intervention.

INTERVENTION

Subjects were randomised into three groups (active tDCS+exercising, sham tDCS+exercising, and no-intervention control). The intervention was delivered in five sessions over two weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity and referred pain area following suprathreshold pressure stimulation.

RESULTS

Pain intensity further decreased in the active tDCS group versus control (mean -14.43, CI95% -25.27 to -3.58) at post-intervention, unlike the sham tDCS group. Both tDCS groups did not achieve greater reductions in referred pain versus control. In the active tDCS group, health status (mean -14.80, CI95% -23.10 to -6.50) and pain catastrophising (mean -6.68, CI95% -11.62 to -1.73) improved at post-intervention, and so did health status (mean -8.81, CI95% -17.11 to -0.51), pain catastrophising (mean -7.00, CI95% -12.13 to -1.87), and depression (mean -3.52, CI95% -6.86 to -0.19) after one month. In the sham tDCS group, improvements were recorded in health status (mean -13.21, CI95% -21.52 to -4.91) and depression (mean -3.35, CI95% -6.35 to -0.35) at post-intervention and in health status (mean -8.77, CI95% -17.06 to -0.47), pain catastrophising (mean -5.68, CI95% -10.80 to -0.55), and depression (mean -3.98, CI95% -7.31 to -0.64) after one month. No intergroup differences were observed between active and sham tDCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Active and sham tDCS improved health status, pain catastrophising, and depression versus control, but pain intensity decreased only in the active tDCS group.

A New Approach to Assess Blinding for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment in Patients with Fibromyalgia. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Correct blinding is essential for preventing potential biases. The aim of this study was to assess the blinding of participants and a therapist following treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation in subjects with fibromyalgia using James’ and Bang’s blinding indexes. Eighty subjects were randomly allocated either active or sham stimulation groups in an intervention of five sessions lasting 20 min each. A questionnaire was delivered to both the therapist and patients after the last session to record their guess of which treatment had been applied. No differences between the groups were noted at baseline in terms of demographic or clinical data. James’ BI was 0.83 (CI 95%: 0.76–0.90) for the patients and 0.55 (CI 95%: 0.45–0.64) for the therapist. Bang’s BI for subjects was −0.08 (CI 95%: −0.24–0.09) and −0.8 (CI 95%: −0.26–0.1) for the active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation groups, respectively. Bang’s BI for the therapist was 0.21 (CI 95%: −0.02–0.43) and 0.13 (CI 95%: −0.09–0.35) for the active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation groups, respectively. Protocols of active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation applied in this study have shown satisfactory blinding of the therapist and subjects with fibromyalgia.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimental pain perception: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many studies have examined the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human pain perception in both healthy populations and pain patients. Nevertheless, studies have yielded conflicting results, likely due to differences in stimulation parameters, experimental paradigms, and outcome measures. Human experimental pain models that utilize indices of pain in response to well-controlled noxious stimuli can avoid many confounds present in clinical data. This study aimed to assess the robustness of tDCS effects on experimental pain perception among healthy populations.

METHODS

We conducted three meta-analyses that analyzed tDCS effects on ratings of perceived pain intensity to suprathreshold noxious stimuli, pain threshold and tolerance.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses showed a statically significant tDCS effect on attenuating pain-intensity ratings to suprathreshold noxious stimuli. In contrast, tDCS effects on pain threshold and pain tolerance were statistically non-significant. Moderator analysis further suggested that stimulation parameters (active electrode size and current density) and experimental pain modality moderated the effectiveness of tDCS in attenuating pain-intensity ratings.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of tDCS on attenuating experimental pain perception depends on both stimulation parameters of tDCS and the modality of experimental pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides some theoretical basis for the application of tDCS in pain management.

Is Allodynia a Determinant Factor in the Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Prophylaxis of Migraine?

OBJECTIVES

Allodynia, the clinical marker of central sensitization, affects even simple daily living activities and increases the tendency for migraine to be more resistant to treatment and have a chronic course. Migraine that impairs quality of life can often be treated with variable pharmaceutical agents, but with various side effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potential alternative treatment for migraine prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with migraine (48 with allodynia and 29 without allodynia) were included in the study. Randomly, 41 of the 77 patients received sham stimulation and 36 patients underwent three sessions of anodal left primary motor cortex stimulation for 2 mA, 20 min. Migraine attack characteristics (frequency, severity, and duration) and analgesic drug use were followed with headache diaries for one month after the stimulation.

RESULTS

After tDCS, migraine attack frequency (p = 0.021), the number of headache days (p = 0.005), duration of attacks (p = 0.008), and symptomatic analgesic drug use (p = 0.007) decreased in patients receiving active tDCS, compared to the sham group. The therapeutic gain of tDCS was calculated as 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-60%) for headache days and 76% (95% CI: 55-86) for headache duration. Response to tDCS treatment was higher in patients without allodynia (60% vs. 24%; p = 0.028) and allodynia came out as an independent predictor of response to tDCS with logistic regression analysis. Side effects were rare and similar to the sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS is a safe, efficacious, and fast method for migraine prophylaxis. However, the administration of tDCS before allodynia occurs, that is, before central sensitization develops, will provide increased responsiveness to the treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

tDCS is more effective before the development of allodynia, but it also improves the quality of life even after the development of allodynia.

Comparing the electric fields of transcranial electric and magnetic perturbation

Significance.Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) by quasistatic electromagnetic means is presently comprised of two methods: magnetic induction methods (transcranial magnetic perturbation or TMP) and electrical contact methods (transcranial electric perturbation or TEP). Both methods couple to neuronal systems by means of the electric fields they produce. Both methods are necessarily accompanied by a scalp electric field which is of greater magnitude than anywhere within the brain. A scalp electric field of sufficient magnitude may produce deleterious effects including peripheral nerve stimulation and heating which consequently limit the spatial and temporal characteristics of the brain electric field. Presently the electromagnetic NIBS literature has produced an accurate but non-generalized understanding of the differences between the TEP and TMP methods.Objective.The aim of this work is to contribute a generalized understanding of the differences between the two methods which may open doors to novel TEP or TMP methods and translating advances, when possible, between the two methods.Approach.This article employs a three shell spherical conductor head model to calculate general analytical results showing the relationship between the spatial scale of the brain electric fields and: (1) the scalp-to-brain mean-squared electric field ratio for the two methods and (2) TEP-to-TMP scalp mean-squared electric field ratio for similar electric fields at depth.Main results.The most general result given is an asymptotic limit to the TEP-to-TMP ratio of scalp mean-squared electric fields for similar electric fields at depth. Specific example calculations for these ratios are also given for typical TEP electrode and TMP coil configurations. While TMP has favorable mean-squared electric field ratios compared to TEP this advantage comes at an energetic cost which is briefly elucidated in this work.

Noninvasive motor cortex stimulation effects on quantitative sensory testing in healthy and chronic pain subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

One of the potential mechanisms of motor cortex stimulation by noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) effects on pain is through the restoration of the defective endogenous inhibitory pain pathways. However, there are still limited data on quantitative sensory testing (QST), including conditioned pain modulation (CPM), supporting this mechanism. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of noninvasive motor cortex stimulation on pain perception as indexed by changes in QST outcomes. Database searches were conducted until July 2019 to include randomized controlled trials that performed sham-controlled NIBS on the motor cortex in either the healthy and/or pain population and assessed the QST and CPM. Quality of studies was assessed through the Cochrane tool. We calculated the Hedge's effect sizes of QST and CPM outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. Thirty-eight studies were included (1178 participants). We found significant increases of pain threshold in healthy subjects (ES = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, I2 = 22.2%) and pain populations (ES = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.15-0.80, I2 = 68.8%), and homogeneous higher CPM effect (pain ratings reduction) in healthy subjects (ES = -0.39, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.14, I2 = 17%) and pain populations (ES = -0.35, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.11, I2 = 0%) in the active NIBS group compared with sham. These results support the idea of top-down modulation of endogenous pain pathways by motor cortex stimulation as one of the main mechanisms of pain reduction assessed by QST, which could be a useful predictive and prognostic biomarker for chronic pain personalized treatment with NIBS.

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.

METHODS

Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.

RESULTS

Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).

CONCLUSION

All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

Neuromodulation for Pain Management in the Inpatient Setting: A Narrative Review

Pain is highly prevalent and pharmacological therapy is not always efficacious. There are a few pathophysiological reasons to believe that neuromodulation would increase the rate of success of pain management. This review article is focused on that aspect, discussing non-invasive or minimally invasive neuromodulation techniques in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. This article provides an in-depth discussion of the multiple neuromodulation techniques available over time to be suitable and effective when used as analgesic therapies for chronic pain. We reviewed the literature and discussed all available neuromodulation options that were tested in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Neuromodulation plays a very important role in treating chronic pain in both inpatient and outpatient setting.

Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied for the treatment of chronic pain. It is considered a promising and safe alternative pain therapy. Different targets have been tested, each having their own particular mechanisms for modulating pain perception.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the current state of the art of tDCS to manage pain and future strategies to optimize tDCS' effects. Current strategies include primary motor cortex tDCS, prefrontal tDCS and tDCS combined with behavioral interventions while future strategies, on the other hand, include high-intensity tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, cerebellar tDCS, home-based tDCS, and tDCS with extended number of sessions.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

It has been shown that the stimulation of the prefrontal and primary motor cortex is efficient for pain reduction while a few other new strategies, such as high-intensity tDCS and network-based tDCS, are believed to induce strong neuroplastic effects, although the underlying neural mechanisms still need to be fully uncovered. Hence, conventional tDCS approaches demonstrated promising effects to manage pain and new strategies are under development to enhance tDCS effects and make this approach more easily available by using, for instance, home-based devices.

Effects of add-on transcranial direct current stimulation on pain in Korean patients with fibromyalgia

Despite promising preliminary results of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) treatment in patients with fibromyalgia (FM), several issues need to be addressed, including its limited efficacy, low response rate, and poor tolerability. We investigated the efficacy and safety of tDCS as an add-on treatment for chronic pain in Korean patients with FM. This study enrolled 46 patients who were refractory to pain medications from May 2016 to February 2017. A conventional tDCS device was used to supply 2 mA of current for 20 min on five consecutive days. The primary end-point was a change in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score at the end of treatment; secondary end-points included changes in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) scores. After tDCS, 46 patients showed clinical improvements in VAS pain scores on days 6, 13, and 36 compared with day 0 (p < 0.001). Improvement in FIQ was seen on day 13. The BDI decreased significantly on days 6 and 36, and BFI improved significantly on days 6 and 13. There were no significant improvements in STAI-I, STAI-II, and MOS-SS scores after tDCS. No serious adverse events were observed. Our results suggest that tDCS can result in significant pain relief in FM patients and may be an effective add-on treatment.

The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on balance in healthy young and older adults: A systematic review of the literature

Various studies have investigated the effect of noninvasive brain stimulation methods such as transcranial direct stimulation (tDCS) on postural control in healthy young and older adults. However, the use of different treatment protocols and outcome measures makes it difficult to interpret the research results. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the current literature on the effect of tDCS on postural control. Nine databases were searched for papers assessing the effect of tDCS on postural control in young healthy and/or older adults. The data of included studies were extracted and methodological quality examined using PEDro. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) of primary motor cortex may improve dynamic balance in young healthy individuals. In older adults, a-tDCS of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and cerebellum showed a positive effect on dual task and dynamic balance, respectively. In conclusion, tDCS may improve both static and dynamic balance in younger and older adults. However, due to lack of consensus in the results, caution is required when drawing conclusions with regards to these findings.

Computational modelling of the long-term effects of brain stimulation on the local and global structural connectivity of epileptic patients

Computational studies of the influence of different network parameters on the dynamic and topological network effects of brain stimulation can enhance our understanding of different outcomes between individuals. In this study, a brain stimulation session along with the subsequent post-stimulation brain activity is simulated for a period of one day using a network of modified Wilson-Cowan oscillators coupled according to diffusion imaging based structural connectivity. We use this computational model to examine how differences in the inter-region connectivity and the excitability of stimulated regions at the time of stimulation can affect post-stimulation behaviours. Our findings indicate that the initial inter-region connectivity can heavily affect the changes that stimulation induces in the connectivity of the network. Moreover, differences in the excitability of the stimulated regions seem to lead to different post-stimulation connectivity changes across the model network, including on the internal connectivity of non-stimulated regions.

Simulation Analyses of tDCS Montages for the Investigation of Dorsal and Ventral Pathways

Modulating higher cognitive functions like reading with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can be challenging as reading involves regions in the dorsal and ventral cortical areas that lie in close proximity. If the two pathways are stimulated simultaneously, the function of dorsal pathway (predominantly used for graphophonological conversion) might interfere with the function of the ventral pathway (used for semantics), and vice-versa. To achieve functional specificity in tDCS for investigating the two pathways of reading, it is important to stimulate each pathway per session such that the spread of current across the cortical areas due to the two montages has minimal overlap. The present study intends to achieve this by introducing a systematic approach for tDCS analysis. We employed the COMETS2 software to simulate 10 montage configurations (5 for each pathway) for three electrode sizes: 5 × 5, 3 × 3, and 5 × 7 cm². This diversity in montage configuration is chosen since previous studies found the position and the size of anode and cathode to play an important role. The values of the magnitude of current density (MCD) obtained from the configuration were used to calculate: (i) average MCD in each cortical lobe, (ii) number of overlapping coordinates, and (iii) cortical areas with high MCD. The measures (i) and (iii) ascertained the current spread by each montage within a cortical lobe, and (ii) verified the overlap of the spread of current between a pair of montages. The analyses show that a montage using the electrode size of 5 × 5 cm² with the anode at CP5 and cathode at CZ, and another with anode at TP7 and cathode at nape of the neck are optimal choices for dorsal and ventral pathways, respectively. To verify, we cross-validated the results with ROAST. This systematic approach was helpful in reducing the ambiguity of montage selection prior to conducting a tDCS study.

Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) aims to alter brain function non-invasively by applying current to electrodes on the scalp. Decades of research and technological advancement are associated with a growing diversity of tES methods and the associated nomenclature for describing these methods. Whether intended to produce a specific response so the brain can be studied or lead to a more enduring change in behavior (e.g. for treatment), the motivations for using tES have themselves influenced the evolution of nomenclature, leading to some scientific, clinical, and public confusion. This ambiguity arises from (i) the infinite parameter space available in designing tES methods of application and (ii) varied naming conventions based upon the intended effects and/or methods of application. Here, we compile a cohesive nomenclature for contemporary tES technologies that respects existing and historical norms, while incorporating insight and classifications based on state-of-the-art findings. We consolidate and clarify existing terminology conventions, but do not aim to create new nomenclature. The presented nomenclature aims to balance adopting broad definitions that encourage flexibility and innovation in research approaches, against classification specificity that minimizes ambiguity about protocols but can hinder progress. Constructive research around tES classification, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), should allow some variations in protocol but also distinguish from approaches that bear so little resemblance that their safety and efficacy should not be compared directly. The proposed framework includes terms in contemporary use across peer-reviewed publications, including relatively new nomenclature introduced in the past decade, such as transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), as well as terms with long historical use such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We also define commonly used terms-of-the-trade including electrode, lead, anode, and cathode, whose prior use, in varied contexts, can also be a source of confusion. This comprehensive clarification of nomenclature and associated preliminary proposals for standardized terminology can support the development of consensus on efficacy, safety, and regulatory standards.

Brain Modulation by Electric Currents in Fibromyalgia: A Structured Review on Non-invasive Approach With Transcranial Electrical Stimulation

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a complex disorder where widespread musculoskeletal pain is associated with many heterogenous symptoms ranging from affective disturbances to cognitive dysfunction and central fatigue. FMS is currently underdiagnosed and often very poorly responsive to pharmacological treatment. Pathophysiology of the disease remains still obscure even if in the last years fine structural and functional cerebral abnormalities have been identified, principally by neurophysiological and imaging studies delineating disfunctions in pain perception, processing and control systems. On such basis, recently, neurostimulation of brain areas involved in mechanism of pain processing and control (primary motor cortex: M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: DLPFC) has been explored by means of different approaches and particularly through non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (transcranial magnetic and electric stimulation: TMS and tES). Here we summarize studies on tES application in FMS. The great majority of reports, based on direct currents (transcranial direct currents stimulation: tDCS) and targeting M1, showed efficacy on pain measures and less on cognitive and affective symptoms, even if several aspects as maintenance of therapeutical effects and optimal stimulation parameters remain to be established. Differently, stimulation of DLPFC, explored in a few studies, was ineffective on pain and showed limited effects on cognitive and affective symptoms. Very recently new tES techniques as high-density tDCS (HD-tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and tDCS devices for home-based treatment have been explored in FMS with interesting even if very preliminary results opening interesting perspectives for more effective, well tolerated, cheap and easy therapeutic approaches.

Transcranial direct current stimulation to prevent and treat surgery-induced opioid dependence: a systematic review

Opioid misuse leading to dependence is a major health issue. Recent studies explored valid alternatives to treat pain in postsurgical settings. This systematic review aims to discuss the role of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in preventing and treating postoperative pain and opioid dependence. PubMed and Embase databases were screened, considering studies testing tDCS effects on pain and opioid consumption in surgical settings and opioid addiction. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Results showed a reduction of postoperative pain, opioid consumption and cue-induced craving following cortical stimulation. Despite the limited number of studies, this review shows preliminary encouraging evidence regarding the analgesic role of tDCS. However, future studies are needed to further investigate the application of tDCS in postsurgical settings.

Neuromodulation of lower limb motor responses with transcutaneous lumbar spinal cord direct current stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a promising technique to modulate spinal circuits. Combining clinical with modelling studies can improve effectiveness of tsDCS protocols. The aim of this study is to measure the effects of lumbar tsDCS on motor spinal responses and observe if these are consistent with the electric field (E-field) predicted from a computational model.

METHODS

The exploratory study design was double-blind crossover and randomized. tsDCS was delivered for 15 min (anodal, cathodal, sham) at L2 vertebra level (2.5 mA, 90 C/cm²) in 14 healthy subjects. F-wave, H-reflex, cortical silent period, motor evoked potential and sympathetic skin response were analyzed. Statistical methods were applied with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, a p < 0.05 was set as significant. A human volume conductor model was obtained from available databases. E-field distributions in the spinal grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) were calculated.

RESULTS

No tsDCS effects were observed. E-field magnitude predicted in the lumbosacral spinal GM and WM was <0.15 V/m, insufficient to ensure neuromodulation, which is consistent with the absence of effects.

CONCLUSION

The tsDCS protocol applied did not change motor response to delivered stimulus, thus we observed no effect on motor spinal circuits.

SIGNIFICANCE

Future tsDCS protocols should be supported by computational models.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Patterns of brain oscillations across different electrode montages in transcranial pulsed current stimulation

Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that has been studied in the last decade. Several parameters have been assessed independently to optimize the effects. Our aim was to explore the effects of tPCS using different montages on cortical brain oscillations indexed by power spectrum and interhemispheric coherence in different electroencephalography frequency bands. Twenty healthy individuals were randomized to receive either active tPCS or sham intervention using the following bilateral montages: ear clip (conventional), ear hook, or mastoid placement. Electroencephalography was recorded before and after the electroencephalography intervention to assess tPCS-induced after effects. Our results showed that active tPCS with bimastoid montage increased significantly alpha absolute power (P=0.0166) and low alpha (P=0.0014) in the frontal region, as well as in the low alpha power spectrum in the central (P=0.0001) and parieto-occipital regions (P=0.0068) compared with the other montages. For interhemispheric coherence analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant main effect of group for theta (P=0.0012) in the frontal region, mainly for ear-clip montage. Our findings evidenced that tPCS delivered through different electrode montages exert different effects on cortical brain oscillations and thus have a different neural signature. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as potential clinical explorations of this technique.

Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is investigated to modulate neuronal function by applying a fixed low-intensity direct current to scalp.

OBJECTIVES

We critically discuss evidence for a monotonic response in effect size with increasing current intensity, with a specific focus on a question if increasing applied current enhance the efficacy of tDCS.

METHODS

We analyzed tDCS intensity does-response from different perspectives including biophysical modeling, animal modeling, human neurophysiology, neuroimaging and behavioral/clinical measures. Further, we discuss approaches to design dose-response trials.

RESULTS

Physical models predict electric field in the brain increases with applied tDCS intensity. Data from animal studies are lacking since a range of relevant low-intensities is rarely tested. Results from imaging studies are ambiguous while human neurophysiology, including using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a probe, suggests a complex state-dependent non-monotonic dose response. The diffusivity of brain current flow produced by conventional tDCS montages complicates this analysis, with relatively few studies on focal High Definition (HD)-tDCS. In behavioral and clinical trials, only a limited range of intensities (1-2 mA), and typically just one intensity, are conventionally tested; moreover, outcomes are subject brain-state dependent. Measurements and models of current flow show that for the same applied current, substantial differences in brain current occur across individuals. Trials are thus subject to inter-individual differences that complicate consideration of population-level dose response.

CONCLUSION

The presence or absence of simple dose response does not impact how efficacious a given tDCS dose is for a given indication. Understanding dose-response in human applications of tDCS is needed for protocol optimization including individualized dose to reduce outcome variability, which requires intelligent design of dose-response studies.

Addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee osteoarthritis: A pilot randomised controlled trial

A randomised, assessor- and participant-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of adding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee osteoarthritis (OA), and provide data to inform a fully powered trial. Participants were randomised to receive active tDCS+exercise (AT+EX) or sham tDCS+exercise (ST+EX) twice weekly for 8 weeks whilst completing home exercises twice per week. Feasibility, safety, patient-perceived response, pain, function, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) were assessed before and after treatment. Fifty-seven people were screened for eligibility. Thirty (52%) entered randomisation and 25 (84%) completed the trial. One episode of headache in the AT+EX group was reported. Pain reduced in both groups following treatment (AT+EX: p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.55; ST+EX: p = 0.026, partial η2 = 0.18) but no between-group differences were observed (p = 0.18, partial η2 = 0.08). Function improved in the AT+EX (p = 0.01, partial η2 = 0.22), but not the ST+EX (p = 0.16, partial η2 = 0.08) group, between-group differences did not reach significance (p = 0.28, partial η2 = 0.052). AT+EX produced greater improvements in PPTs than ST+EX (p<0.05) (superolateral knee: partial η2 = 0.17; superior knee: partial η2 = 0.3; superomedial knee: partial η2 = 0.26). CPM only improved in the AT+EX group but no between-group difference was observed (p = 0.054, partial η2 = 0.158). This study provides the first feasibility and safety data for the addition of tDCS to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee OA. Our data suggest AT+EX may improve pain, function and pain mechanisms beyond that of ST+EX, and provides support for progression to a fully powered randomised controlled trial.

Anodal cerebellar tDCS modulates lower extremity pain perception

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for pain management. The studies investigating therapeutic neuromodulation with tDCS for lower extremity pain are scarce and inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to analyze the effects of cerebellar tDCS on lower extremity sensory and pain thresholds in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a single-blind crossover repeated-measure study. Utilizing randomized conditions, we examined the effects of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation of the right cerebellum in 14 healthy volunteers on sensory and pain thresholds which were induced in the right leg using electrical stimulation. tDCS intensity was 2 mA and the duration of the stimulation was 10 minutes.

RESULTS

After anodal cerebellar stimulation the pain threshold of the ipsilateral leg was increased (p < 0.01). We could not detect any significant pain modulation with cathodal or sham stimulation (p > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant modulation of the sensory threshold was detected after anodal, cathodal or sham cerebellar tDCS (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that anodal cerebellar tDCS with a reference electrode positioned over the buccinator area modulates pain processing in the ipsilateral leg. Further investigation is required to evaluate possible application in chronic pain patients.

Test-retest reliability of prefrontal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) effects on functional MRI connectivity in healthy subjects

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) can be used for probing functional brain connectivity and meets general interest as novel therapeutic intervention in psychiatric and neurological disorders. Along with a more extensive use, it is important to understand the interplay between neural systems and stimulation protocols requiring basic methodological work. Here, we examined the test-retest (TRT) characteristics of tDCS-induced modulations in resting-state functional-connectivity MRI (RS fcMRI). Twenty healthy subjects received 20minutes of either active or sham tDCS of the dorsolateral PFC (2mA, anode over F3 and cathode over F4, international 10-20 system), preceded and ensued by a RS fcMRI (10minutes each). All subject underwent three tDCS sessions with one-week intervals in between. Effects of tDCS on RS fcMRI were determined at an individual as well as at a group level using both ROI-based and independent-component analyses (ICA). To evaluate the TRT reliability of individual active-tDCS and sham effects on RS fcMRI, voxel-wise intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of post-tDCS maps between testing sessions were calculated. For both approaches, results revealed low reliability of RS fcMRI after active tDCS (ICC_(2,1) = -0.09 - 0.16). Reliability of RS fcMRI (baselines only) was low to moderate for ROI-derived (ICC_(2,1) = 0.13 - 0.50) and low for ICA-derived connectivity (ICC_(2,1) = 0.19 - 0.34). Thus, for ROI-based analyses, the distribution of voxel-wise ICC was shifted to lower TRT reliability after active, but not after sham tDCS, for which the distribution was similar to baseline. The intra-individual variation observed here resembles variability of tDCS effects in motor regions and may be one reason why in this study robust tDCS effects at a group level were missing. The data can be used for appropriately designing large scale studies investigating methodological issues such as sources of variability and localisation of tDCS effects.

Combined transcranial and trans-spinal direct current stimulation in chronic headache: A feasibility and safety trial for a novel intervention

Background:

Chronic primary headache disorders are associated with frequent, severe pain and significant functional impairment, with treatment remaining challenging.

Objective:

We examined the feasibility and safety of a novel brain [transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)] and spinal cord stimulation [trans-spinal cord direct current stimulation (tsDCS)] treatment in chronic headache.

Methods:

Nine participants (3 males; aged, 40 ± 15 years) suffering from chronic daily headache, chronic tension-type headache, or chronic migraine received the combined brain and spinal cord intervention for 5 consecutive days. Stimulation was applied for a total of 40 minutes (20 minutes of tDCS followed by 20 minutes of tsDCS) at 1 mA. Pain sensitivity and headache symptoms (frequency, severity, duration, and medications recorded via a headache diary, 4 weeks before and after treatment) were assessed.

Results:

The treatment was safe, feasible, and well tolerated. Headache frequency was reduced following the treatment (p = 0.026) in chronic tension-type headache and chronic migraine, but not in chronic daily headache. Headache severity was reduced immediately post-treatment in 67% of sessions. A trend towards a reduction in medication use was observed (p = 0.075). No changes in headache severity (p = 0.16) or duration (p = 0.34) were present.

Conclusion:

These data suggest that combined tDCS and tsDCS intervention is safe and feasible, and may improve headache frequency in patients with chronic primary headache disorders.

Mechanisms and Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

The US Air Force Office of Scientific Research convened a meeting of researchers in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, engineering, and medicine to discuss most pressing issues facing ongoing research in the field of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and related techniques. In this study, we present opinions prepared by participants of the meeting, focusing on the most promising areas of research, immediate and future goals for the field, and the potential for hormesis theory to inform tDCS research. Scientific, medical, and ethical considerations support the ongoing testing of tDCS in healthy and clinical populations, provided best protocols are used to maximize safety. Notwithstanding the need for ongoing research, promising applications include enhancing vigilance/attention in healthy volunteers, which can accelerate training and support learning. Commonly, tDCS is used as an adjunct to training/rehabilitation tasks with the goal of leftward shift in the learning/treatment effect curves. Although trials are encouraging, elucidating the basic mechanisms of tDCS will accelerate validation and adoption. To this end, biomarkers (eg, clinical neuroimaging and findings from animal models) can support hypotheses linking neurobiological mechanisms and behavioral effects. Dosage can be optimized using computational models of current flow and understanding dose–response. Both biomarkers and dosimetry should guide individualized interventions with the goal of reducing variability. Insights from other applied energy domains, including ionizing radiation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and low-level laser (light) therapy, can be prudently leveraged.

COMETS2: An advanced MATLAB toolbox for the numerical analysis of electric fields generated by transcranial direct current stimulation

BACKGROUND

Since there is no way to measure electric current generated by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) inside the human head through in vivo experiments, numerical analysis based on the finite element method has been widely used to estimate the electric field inside the head. In 2013, we released a MATLAB toolbox named COMETS, which has been used by a number of groups and has helped researchers to gain insight into the electric field distribution during stimulation. The aim of this study was to develop an advanced MATLAB toolbox, named COMETS2, for the numerical analysis of the electric field generated by tDCS.

NEW METHOD

COMETS2 can generate any sizes of rectangular pad electrodes on any positions on the scalp surface. To reduce the large computational burden when repeatedly testing multiple electrode locations and sizes, a new technique to decompose the global stiffness matrix was proposed.

RESULTS

As examples of potential applications, we observed the effects of sizes and displacements of electrodes on the results of electric field analysis. The proposed mesh decomposition method significantly enhanced the overall computational efficiency.

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS

We implemented an automatic electrode modeler for the first time, and proposed a new technique to enhance the computational efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, an efficient toolbox for tDCS analysis is introduced (freely available at http://www.cometstool.com). It is expected that COMETS2 will be a useful toolbox for researchers who want to benefit from the numerical analysis of electric fields generated by tDCS.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

The New York Head-A precise standardized volume conductor model for EEG source localization and tES targeting

In source localization of electroencephalograpic (EEG) signals, as well as in targeted transcranial electric current stimulation (tES), a volume conductor model is required to describe the flow of electric currents in the head. Boundary element models (BEM) can be readily computed to represent major tissue compartments, but cannot encode detailed anatomical information within compartments. Finite element models (FEM) can capture more tissue types and intricate anatomical structures, but with the higher precision also comes the need for semi-automated segmentation, and a higher computational cost. In either case, adjusting to the individual human anatomy requires costly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and thus head modeling is often based on the anatomy of an 'arbitrary' individual (e.g. Colin27). Additionally, existing reference models for the human head often do not include the cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF), and their field of view excludes portions of the head and neck-two factors that demonstrably affect current-flow patterns. Here we present a highly detailed FEM, which we call ICBM-NY, or "New York Head". It is based on the ICBM152 anatomical template (a non-linear average of the MRI of 152 adult human brains) defined in MNI coordinates, for which we extended the field of view to the neck and performed a detailed segmentation of six tissue types (scalp, skull, CSF, gray matter, white matter, air cavities) at 0.5mm(3) resolution. The model was solved for 231 electrode locations. To evaluate its performance, additional FEMs and BEMs were constructed for four individual subjects. Each of the four individual FEMs (regarded as the 'ground truth') is compared to its BEM counterpart, the ICBM-NY, a BEM of the ICBM anatomy, an 'individualized' BEM of the ICBM anatomy warped to the individual head surface, and FEMs of the other individuals. Performance is measured in terms of EEG source localization and tES targeting errors. Results show that the ICBM-NY outperforms FEMs of mismatched individual anatomies as well as the BEM of the ICBM anatomy according to both criteria. We therefore propose the New York Head as a new standard head model to be used in future EEG and tES studies whenever an individual MRI is not available. We release all model data online at neuralengr.com/nyhead/ to facilitate broad adoption.

Feasibility of Non-invasive Brain Modulation for Management of Pain Related to Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Patients with head and neck cancer often experience a significant decrease in their quality of life during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) due to treatment-related pain, which is frequently classified as severe. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a method of non-invasive brain stimulation that has been frequently used in experimental and clinical pain studies. In this pilot study, we investigated the clinical impact and central mechanisms of twenty primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation sessions with tDCS during 7 weeks of CRT for head and neck cancer. From 48 patients screened, seven met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Electroencephalography (EEG) data were recorded before and after tDCS stimulation as well as across the trial to monitor short and long-term impact on brain function. The compliance rate during the long trial was extremely high (98.4%), and patients mostly reported mild side effects in line with the literature (e.g., tingling). Compared to a large standard of care study from our institution, our initial results indicate that M1-tDCS stimulation has a pain relief effect during the CRT that resulted in a significant attenuation of weight reduction and dysphagia normally observed in these patients. These results translated to our patient cohort not needing feeding tubes or IV fluids. Power spectra analysis of EEG data indicated significant changes in α, β, and γ bands immediately after tDCS stimulation and, in addition, α, δ, and θ bands over the long term in the seventh stimulation week (p < 0.05). The independent component EEG clustering analysis showed estimated functional brain regions including precuneus and superior frontal gyrus (SFG) in the seventh week of tDCS stimulation. These areas colocalize with our previous positron emission tomography (PET) study where there was activation in the endogenous μ-opioid system during M1-tDCS. This study provides preliminary evidence demonstrating the feasibility and safety of M1-tDCS as a potential adjuvant neuromechanism-driven analgesic therapy for head and neck cancer patients receiving CRT, inducing immediate and long-term changes in the cortical activity and clinical measures, with minimal side-effects.

Cerebellar direct current stimulation modulates pain perception in humans

PURPOSE

The cerebellum is involved in a wide number of integrative functions, but its role in pain experience and in the nociceptive information processing is poorly understood. In healthy volunteers we evaluated the effects of transcranial cerebellar direct current stimulation (tcDCS) by studying the changes in the perceptive threshold, pain intensity at given stimulation intensities (VAS:0-10) and laser evoked potentials (LEPs) variables (N1 and N2/P2 amplitudes and latencies).

METHODS

Fifteen subjects were studied before and after anodal, cathodal and sham tcDCS. LEPs were obtained using a neodymium:yttrium-aluminium-perovskite (Nd:YAP) laser and recorded from the dorsum of the left hand. VAS was evaluated by delivering laser pulses at two different intensities, respectively two and three times the perceptive threshold.

RESULTS

Cathodal polarization dampened significantly the perceptive threshold and increased the VAS score, while the anodal one had opposite effects. Cathodal tcDCS increased significantly the N1 and N2/P2 amplitudes and decreased their latencies, whereas anodal tcDCS elicited opposite effects. Motor thresholds assessed through transcranial magnetic stimulation were not affected by cerebellar stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

tcDCS modulates pain perception and its cortical correlates. Since it is effective on both N1 and N2/P2 components, we speculate that the cerebellum engagement in pain processing modulates the activity of both somatosensory and cingulate cortices. Present findings prompt investigation of the cerebellar direct current polarization as a possible novel and safe therapeutic tool in chronic pain patients.