Impact of bifrontal home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in pain catastrophizing and disability due to pain in fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind sham-controlled study

Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, Nociception, and Pain

This article examines the involvement of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the control of nociception and pain. BDNF, a neurotrophin known for its essential role in neuronal survival and plasticity, has garnered significant attention for its potential implications as a modulator of synaptic transmission. This comprehensive review aims to provide insights into the multifaceted interactions between BDNF and pain pathways, encompassing both physiological and pathological pain conditions. I delve into the molecular mechanisms underlying BDNF's involvement in pain processing and discuss potential therapeutic applications of BDNF and its mimetics in managing pain. Furthermore, I highlight recent advancements and challenges in translating BDNF-related research into clinical practice.

Impact of multiple-session home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (M-HB-tDCS) on eating behavior in fibromyalgia: A factorial randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Multiple-session home-based self-applied transcranial direct current stimulation (M-HB-self-applied-tDCS) has previously been found to effectively reduce chronic pain and enhance cognitive function. However, the effectiveness of this method for disordered eating behavior still needs to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether 20 sessions of M-HB-self-applied-tDCS, administered over four weeks to either the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) or primary motor cortex (M1), could improve various aspects of eating behavior, anthropometric measures, and adherence.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 102 fibromyalgia patients between the ages of 30 and 65 to one of four tDCS groups: L-DLPFC (anodal-(a)-tDCS, n = 34; sham-(s)-tDCS, n = 17) or M1 (a-tDCS, n = 34; s-tDCS, n = 17). Patients self-administered 20-min tDCS sessions daily with 2 mA under remote supervision following in-person training.

RESULTS

Generalized linear models revealed significant effects of M-HB-self-applied-tDCS compared to s-tDCS on uncontrolled eating (UE) (Wald χ2 = 5.62; df = 1; P = 0.018; effect size, ES = 0.55), and food craving (Wald χ2 = 5.62; df = 1; P = 0.018; ES = 0.57). Regarding fibromyalgia symptoms, we found a differentiated impact of a-tDCS on M1 compared to DLPFC in reducing food cravings. Additionally, M-HB-a-tDCS significantly reduced emotional eating and waist size. In contrast, M1 stimulation was more effective in improving fibromyalgia symptoms. The global adherence rate was high, at 88.94%.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that M-HB-self-applied-tDCS is a suitable approach for reducing uncontrolled and emotional eating, with greater efficacy in L-DLPFC. Furthermore, these results revealed the influence of fibromyalgia symptoms on M-HB-self-applied-tDCS's, with M1 being particularly effective in mitigating food cravings and reducing fibromyalgia symptoms.

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.

Efficacy of Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Primary Motor Cortex and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in the Disability Due to Pain in Fibromyalgia: A Factorial Sham-Randomized Clinical Study

This randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial compared the effectiveness of home-based-(HB) active transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC) or primary motor cortex (M1) with their respective sham-(s)-tDCS to determine whether a-tDCS would be more effective than s-tDCS in reducing pain and improving disability due to pain. The study included 102 patients with fibromyalgia aged 30 to 65 years old randomly assigned to 1 of 4 tDCS groups using a ratio of 2:1:2:1. The groups included l-DLPFC (a-tDCS, n = 34) and (s-tDCS, n = 17), or tDCS on the M1 (a-tDCS, n = 34) or (s-tDCS, n = 17). Patients self-administered 20 sessions of tDCS, with 2 mA for 20 minutes each day under remote supervision after in-person training. The Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements revealed that a-tDCS on DLPFC significantly reduced pain scores by 36.53% compared to 25.79% in s-tDCS. From baseline to the fourth week of treatment, a-tDCS on M1 reduced pain scores by 45.89% compared to 22.92% over s-tDCS. A generalized linear model showed a significant improvement in the disability scale in the groups that received a-tDCS compared to s-tDCS over M1 20.54% versus 2.49% (χ2 = 11.06, df = 1, P < .001]), while on DLPFC the improvement was 14.29% and 5.77%, with a borderline significance (χ2 = 3.19, df = 1, P = .06]), respectively. A higher reduction in serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor from baseline to treatment end was positively correlated with decreased pain scores regardless of the treatment group. The application of a-tDCS over M1 increased the heat pain threshold and the function of the descending pain inhibitory system. PERSPECTIVE: These findings provide important insights: (1) HB-tDCS has effectively reduced pain scores and improved disability due to fibromyalgia. (2) The study provides evidence that HB-a-tDCS is a viable and effective therapeutic approach. (3) HB-a-tDCS over M1 improved the function of the descending pain inhibitory system and increased the heat pain threshold. Finally, our findings also emphasize that brain-derived neurotrophic factor, as an index of neuroplasticity, may serve as a valuable marker associated with changes in clinical pain measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Number NCT03843203.

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.

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.

Topological alterations in white matter structural networks in fibromyalgia

PURPOSE

Neuroimaging studies employing analyses dependent on regional assumptions and specific neuronal circuits could miss characteristics of whole-brain structural connectivity critical to the pathophysiology of fibromyalgia (FM). This study applied the whole-brain graph-theoretical approach to identify whole-brain structural connectivity disturbances in FM.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used probabilistic diffusion tractography and graph theory analysis to evaluate the topological organization of brain white matter networks in 20 patients with FM and 20 healthy controls (HCs). The relationship between brain network metrics and clinical variables was evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with HCs, FM patients had lower clustering coefficient, local efficiency, hierarchy, synchronization, and higher normalized characteristic path length. Regionally, patients demonstrated a significant reduction in nodal efficiency and centrality; these regions were mainly located in the prefrontal, temporal cortex, and basal ganglia. The network-based statistical analysis (NBS) identified decreased structural connectivity in a subnetwork of prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and thalamus in FM. There was no correlation between network metrics and clinical variables (false discovery rate corrected).

CONCLUSIONS

The current research demonstrated disrupted topological architecture of white matter networks in FM. Our results suggested compromised neural integration and segregation and reduced structural connectivity in FM.

Home-Based Treatment for Chronic Pain Combining Neuromodulation, Computer-Assisted Training, and Telemonitoring in Patients With Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Rehabilitative Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a disabling symptom frequently reported in patients with breast cancer with a prevalence ranging from 25% to 60%, representing a major health issue. It has negative consequences on health status, causing psychological distress and affecting quality of life. Furthermore, the clinical management of chronic pain is often inadequate, and many patients do not benefit from the administration of pharmacological treatments. Alternative therapeutic options have been implemented to improve the psychophysical well-being of patients, including neuromodulation and complementary interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a home care strategy combining computerized rehabilitation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and remote telemonitoring via a web-based platform in patients with breast cancer suffering for chronic pain.

METHODS

A web-based structured survey aimed at monitoring chronic pain and its effect on psychological functions will be delivered to patients with breast cancer through social media and email. In total, 42 patients with breast cancer affected by chronic pain will be recruited during the medical screening visit. The patients will be randomly divided into 3 treatment groups that will carry out either tDCS only, exercise therapy only, or a combination of both over a 3-week period. All the treatments will be delivered at the patients' home through the use of a system including a tablet, wearable inertial sensors, and a tDCS programmable medical device. Using web-based questionnaires, the perception of pain (based on the pain self-efficacy questionnaire, visual analogue scale, pain catastrophizing scale, and brief pain inventory) and psychological variables (based on the hospital and anxiety depression scale and 12-item short form survey) will be assessed at the beginning of treatment, 1 week after the start of treatment, at the end of treatment, 1 month after the start of treatment, and 3 months after the start of treatment. The system's usability (based on the mobile app rating scale and system usability scale) and its involvement in the decision-making process (based on the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire) will be also evaluated. Finally, at the end of the treatment, a digital focus group will be conducted with the 42 patients to explore their unexpressed needs and preferences concerning treatment.

RESULTS

The study project is scheduled to start in June 2023, and it is expected to be completed by August 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect that the combination of tDCS and telemedicine programs will reduce pain perceived by patients with breast cancer and improve their mental well-being more effectively than single interventions. Furthermore, we assume that this home-based approach will also improve patients' participation in routine clinical care, reducing disparities in accessing health care processes. This integrated home care strategy could be useful for patients with breast cancer who cannot find relief from chronic pain with pharmacological treatments or for those who have limited access to care due to poor mobility or geographical barriers, thus increasing the patients' empowerment and reducing health care costs.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/49508.

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.

TDCS at home for depressive disorders: an updated systematic review and lessons learned from a prematurely terminated randomized controlled pilot study

The application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is the subject of current clinical trials. This is due to its positive safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and potential scalability for a wide outreach in clinical practice. Here, we provide a systematic review of the available studies and also a report on the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on tDCS at home for the treatment of MDD. This trial had to be prematurely terminated due to safety concerns. The HomeDC trial is a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with MDD (DSM-5) were randomized to active or sham tDCS. Patients conducted tDCS at home for 6 weeks with 5 sessions/week (30 min at 2 mA) anode over F3, cathode over F4. Sham tDCS resembled active tDCS, with ramp-in and ramp-out periods, but without intermittent stimulation. The study was prematurely terminated due to an accumulation of adverse events (AEs, skin lesions), so that only 11 patients were included. Feasibility was good. Safety monitoring was not sufficient enough to detect or prevent AEs within an appropriate timeframe. Regarding antidepressant effects, the reduction in depression scales over time was significant. However, active tDCS was not superior to sham tDCS in this regard. Both the conclusions from this review and the HomeDC trial show that there are several critical issues with the use of tDCS at home that need to be addressed. Nevertheless the array of transcranial electric simulation (TES) methods that this mode of application offers, including tDCS, is highly interesting and warrants further investigation in high quality RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05172505. Registration date: 12/13/2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05172505 . *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers) **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

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 Hypnotic Analgesia and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Tolerance and Corticospinal Excitability in Individuals with Fibromyalgia: A Cross-Over Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

We compare the effect of HAS, a-tDCS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC), and rest-testing on pain measures [(cold pressor test (CPT) (primary outcome) and heat pain threshold]. We also compare their effects on the motor evoked potential (MEP) (primary outcome), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), intracortical facilitation (ICF), and cortical silent period (CSP).

Methods

This randomized, blind, crossover trial included 18 women with fibromyalgia, aged from 18 to 65 years old. They received at random and in a crossover order a-tDCS over the l-DLPFC (2mA), HAS, or a rest-testing.

Results

HAS compared to a-tDCS increased the pain tolerance with a moderate effect size (ES) [Cohen's f=-0.78; (CI 95%; -1.48 to -0.12)]. While compared to rest-testing, HAS increased the CPT with a large ES [Cohen's f=-0.87; (CI 95%; -1.84 to -0.09)]. The a-tDCS compared to HAS increased the MEP amplitude with large ES [Cohen's f=-1.73 (CI 95%; -2.17 to -0.17)]. Likewise, its ES compared to rest-testing in the MEP size was large [Cohen's f=-1.03; (CI 95%; -2.06 to -0.08)].

Conclusion

These findings revealed that HAS affects contra-regulating mechanisms involved in perception and pain tolerance, while the a-tDCS increased the excitability of the corticospinal pathways. They give a subsidy to investigate their effect as approaches to counter regulate the maladaptive neuroplasticity involved in fibromyalgia.

Clinical Trial Registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier - NCT05066568.

The effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in cognitive performance in fibromyalgia: A randomized, double-blind sham-controlled trial

Background

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a promising approach to improving fibromyalgia (FM) symptoms, including cognitive impairment. So, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of home-based tDCS in treating cognitive impairment. Besides, we explored if the severity of dysfunction of the Descendant Pain Modulation System (DPMS) predicts the tDCS effect and if its effect is linked to changes in neuroplasticity as measured by the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial, single-center, included 36 women with FM, aged from 30 to 65 years old, assigned 2:1 to receive a-tDCS (n = 24) and s-tDCS (n = 12). The primary outcome was the Trail Making Test's assessment of executive attention, divided attention, working memory (WM), and cognitive flexibility (TMT-B-A). The secondary outcomes were the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), the WM by Digits subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III), and quality of life. Twenty-minute daily sessions of home-based tDCS for 4 weeks (total of 20 sessions), 2 mA anodal-left (F3) and cathodal-right (F4) prefrontal stimulation with 35 cm² carbon electrodes.

Results

GLM showed a main effect for treatment in the TMT-B-A [Wald χ2 = 6.176; Df = 1; P = 0.03]. The a-tDCS improved cognitive performance. The effect size estimated by Cohen's d at treatment end in the TMT-B-A scores was large [-1.48, confidence interval (CI) 95% = -2.07 to-0.90]. Likewise, the a-tDCS effects compared to s-tDCS improved performance in the WM, verbal and phonemic fluency, and quality-of-life scale. The impact of a-tDCS on the cognitive tests was positively correlated with the reduction in serum BDNF from baseline to treatment end. Besides, the decrease in the serum BDNF was positively associated with improving the quality of life due to FM symptoms.

Conclusion

These findings revealed that daily treatment with a home-based tDCS device over l-DLPFC compared to sham stimulation over 4 weeks improved the cognitive impairment in FM. The a-tDCS at home was well-tolerated, underlining its potential as an alternative treatment for cognitive dysfunction. Besides, the a-tDCS effect is related to the severity of DPMS dysfunction and changes in neuroplasticity state.

Clinical trial registration

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT03843203].

Non-invasive brain stimulation and pain neuroscience education in the cognitive-affective treatment of chronic low back pain: Evidence and future directions

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is among the leading causes of disability worldwide. Beyond the physical and functional limitations, people's beliefs, cognitions, and perceptions of their pain can negatively influence their prognosis. Altered cognitive and affective behaviors, such as pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia, are correlated with changes in the brain and share a dynamic and bidirectional relationship. Similarly, in the presence of persistent pain, attentional control mechanisms, which serve to organize relevant task information are impaired. These deficits demonstrate that pain may be a predominant focus of attentional resources, leaving limited reserve for other cognitively demanding tasks. Cognitive dysfunction may limit one's capacity to evaluate, interpret, and revise the maladaptive thoughts and behaviors associated with catastrophizing and fear. As such, interventions targeting the brain and resultant behaviors are compelling. Pain neuroscience education (PNE), a cognitive intervention used to reconceptualize a person's pain experiences, has been shown to reduce the effects of pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia. However, cognitive deficits associated with chronic pain may impact the efficacy of such interventions. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of anxiety, depression, and pain. In addition, as with the treatment of most physical and psychological diagnoses, an active multimodal approach is considered to be optimal. Therefore, combining the neuromodulatory effects of NIBS with a cognitive intervention such as PNE could be promising. This review highlights the cognitive-affective deficits associated with CLBP while focusing on current evidence for cognition-based therapies and NIBS.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation vs Sham for the Treatment of Inattention in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: The TUNED Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may improve symptoms of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, previous trials are characterized by small sample sizes, heterogeneous methodologies, and short treatment periods using clinic-based tDCS.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of home-based tDCS in treating inattention symptoms in adult patients with ADHD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial (tDCS for the Treatment of Inattention Symptoms in Adult Patients With ADHD [TUNED]), conducted from July 2019 through July 2021 in a single-center outpatient academic setting. Of 277 potential participants screened by phone, 150 were assessed for eligibility on site, and 64 were included. Participants were adults with ADHD, inattentive or combined subtype. Exclusion criteria included current stimulant drug treatment, current moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, diagnosis of bipolar disorder with a manic or depressive episode in the last year, diagnosis of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder; 55 of participants completed follow-up after 4 weeks.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-minute daily sessions of home-based tDCS for 4 weeks, 2 mA anodal-right and cathodal-left prefrontal stimulation with 35-cm2 carbon electrodes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Inattentive scores in the clinician-administered version of the Adult ADHD Self-report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS-I).

RESULTS

Included in this trial were 64 participants with ADHD (31 [48%] inattentive presentation and 33 [52%] combined presentation), with a mean (SD) age of 38.3 (9.6) years. Thirty participants (47%) were women and 34 (53%) were men. Fifty-five finished the trial. At week 4, the mean (SD) inattention score, as measured with CASRS-I, was 18.88 (5.79) in the active tDCS group and 23.63 (3.97) in the sham tDCS group. Linear mixed-effects models revealed a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (βinteraction = -3.18; 95% CI, -4.60 to -1.75; P < .001), showing decreased symptoms of inattention in the active tDCS group over the 3 assessments compared to the sham tDCS group. Mild adverse events were more frequent in the active tDCS group, particularly skin redness, headache, and scalp burn.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, daily treatment with a home-based tDCS device over 4 weeks improved attention in adult patients with ADHD who were not taking stimulant medication. Home-based tDCS could be a nonpharmacological alternative for patients with ADHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04003740.

Determining the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Tinnitus, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10–15% of people, a significant proportion of whom also experience symptoms such as depression or anxiety that negatively affect their quality of life. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique involving constant low-intensity direct current delivered via scalp electrodes. It is a potential treatment option for tinnitus, as well as tinnitus-related conditions such as depression and anxiety. This systematic review estimates the effects of tDCS on outcomes relevant to tinnitus. In addition, it sheds light on the relationship between stimulation parameters and the effect of tDCS on these outcomes; (2) Methods: Exhaustive searches of electronic databases were conducted. Randomised controlled trials were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: tinnitus symptom severity, anxiety, or depression. Where available, data on quality of life, adverse effects, and neurophysiological changes were also reviewed. GRADE was used to assess the certainty in the estimate; (3) Results: Meta-analyses revealed a statistically significant reduction in tinnitus (moderate certainty) and depression (low certainty)-but not anxiety-following active tDCS compared to sham control. Network meta-analyses revealed potential optimal stimulation parameters; (4) Conclusions: The evidence synthesised in this review suggests tDCS has the potential to reduce symptom severity in tinnitus and depression. It further narrows down the number of potentially optimal stimulation parameters.

Safety and Feasibility of Tele-Supervised Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a worldwide cause of disability in older age, especially during the covid pandemic. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that has shown encouraging efficacy for treatment of depression. Here, we investigate the feasibility of an innovative protocol where tDCS is administered within the homes of older adults with MDD (patient participants) with the help of a study companion (i.e. caregiver). We further analyze the feasibility of a remotely-hosted training program that provides the knowledge and skills to administer tDCS at home, without requiring them to visit the lab. We also employed a newly developed multi-channel tDCS system with real-time monitoring designed to guarantee the safety and efficacy of home-based tDCS. Patient participants underwent a total of 37 home-based tDCS sessions distributed over 12 weeks. The protocol consisted of three phases each lasting four weeks: an acute phase, containing 28 home-based tDCS sessions, a taper phase containing nine home-based tDCS sessions, and a follow up phase, with no stimulation sessions. We found that the home-based, remotely-supervised, study companion administered, multi-channel tDCS protocol for older adults with MDD was feasible and safe. Further, the study introduces a novel training program for remote instruction of study companions in the administration of tDCS. Future research is required to determine the translatability of these findings to a larger sample.

Clinical Trial Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04799405?term=NCT04799405&amp;draw=2&amp;rank=1, identifier NCT04799405.