Commentary: physical approaches for the treatment of epilepsy: electrical and magnetic stimulation and cooling

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.

Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation: A Potential Risk for Genetic Generalized Epilepsy Patients (Study Case)

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a re-emergent neuromodulation technique that consists in the external application of oscillating electrical currents that induces changes in cortical excitability. We present the case of a 16-year-old female with pharmaco-resistant juvenile myoclonic epilepsy to 3 antiepileptic’s drugs characterized by 4 myoclonic and 20 absence seizures monthly. She received tACS at 1 mA at 3 Hz pulse train during 60 min over Fp1–Fp2 (10–20 EEG international system position) during 4 consecutive days using an Endeavor™ IOM Systems device^® (Natus Medical Incorporated, Middleton, WI, USA). At the 1-month follow-up, she reported a 75% increase in seizures frequency (only myoclonic and tonic–clonic events) and developed a 24-h myoclonic status epilepticus that resolved with oral clonazepam and intravenous valproate. At the 2-month follow-up, the patient reported a 15-day seizure-free period.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging non-invasive neuromodulation therapy in epilepsy with conflicting results in terms of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE

Review the literature about the efficacy and safety of tDCS in epilepsy in humans and animals.

METHODS

We searched studies in PubMed, MedLine, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (January 1969 to October 2013) using the keywords 'transcranial direct current stimulation' or 'tDCS' or 'brain polarization' or 'galvanic stimulation' and 'epilepsy' in animals and humans. Original articles that reported tDCS safety and efficacy in epileptic animals or humans were included. Four review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, PRISMA guidelines and Jadad Scale. A meta-analysis was not possible due to methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

We analyzed 9 articles with different methodologies (3 animals/6 humans) with a total of 174 stimulated individuals; 109 animals and 65 humans. In vivo and in vitro animal studies showed that direct current stimulation can successfully induce suppression of epileptiform activity without neurological injury and 4/6 (67%) clinical studies showed an effective decrease in epileptic seizures and 5/6 (83%) reduction of inter-ictal epileptiform activity. All patients tolerated tDCS well.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS trials have demonstrated preliminary safety and efficacy in animals and patients with epilepsy. Further larger studies are needed to define the best stimulation protocols and long-term follow-up.

Dissociation of motor task-induced cortical excitability and pain perception changes in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that interventions aiming at modulation of the motor cortex activity lead to pain reduction. In order to understand further the role of the motor cortex on pain modulation, we aimed to compare the behavioral (pressure pain threshold) and neurophysiological effects (transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced cortical excitability) across three different motor tasks.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Fifteen healthy male subjects were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, blinded, cross-over designed study. Three different tasks were tested including motor learning with and without visual feedback, and simple hand movements. Cortical excitability was assessed using single and paired-pulse TMS measures such as resting motor threshold (RMT), motor-evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and cortical silent period (CSP). All tasks showed significant reduction in pain perception represented by an increase in pressure pain threshold compared to the control condition (untrained hand). ANOVA indicated a difference among the three tasks regarding motor cortex excitability change. There was a significant increase in motor cortex excitability (as indexed by MEP increase and CSP shortening) for the simple hand movements.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Although different motor tasks involving motor learning with and without visual feedback and simple hand movements appear to change pain perception similarly, it is likely that the neural mechanisms might not be the same as evidenced by differential effects in motor cortex excitability induced by these tasks. In addition, TMS-indexed motor excitability measures are not likely good markers to index the effects of motor-based tasks on pain perception in healthy subjects as other neural networks besides primary motor cortex might be involved with pain modulation during motor training.