Efficacy and safety of combining clozapine with electrical or magnetic brain stimulation in treatment-refractory schizophrenia

An international research agenda for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia

Treatment-resistant symptoms occur in about a third of patients with schizophrenia and are associated with a substantial reduction in their quality of life. The development of new treatment options for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia constitutes a crucial, unmet need in psychiatry. Additionally, an overview of past and possible future research avenues to optimise the early detection, diagnosis, and management of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia is unavailable. In this Health Policy, we discuss the ongoing challenges associated with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia faced by patients and health-care providers worldwide to improve the understanding of this condition. We then revisit several clozapine guidelines, the diagnostic tests and treatment options for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia, and currently applied research approaches in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. We also suggest methodologies and targets for future research, divided into innovative nosology-oriented field trials (eg, examining dimensional symptom staging), translational approaches (eg, genetics), epidemiological research (eg, real-world studies), and interventional studies (eg, non-traditional trial designs incorporating lived experiences and caregivers' perspectives). Finally, we note that low-income and middle-income countries are under-represented in studies on clozapine-resistant schizophrenia and propose an agenda to guide multinational research on the cause and treatment of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. We hope that this research agenda will empower better global representation of patients living with clozapine-resistant schizophrenia and ultimately improve their functional outcomes and quality of life.

Clozapine research from India: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although clozapine is much researched in western literature, a review on Indian research on clozapine published in 2010 reported limited data and need for further research in this area.

AIM

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of research on clozapine from India from 2010 to mid-2022 and also compare the same with research output before 2010.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic various search engines, i.e., PUBMED, Medknow, Hinari and Google Scholar was done using the key words clozapine and India. Published articles with clozapine in the title and having an author from India, published during 2010 to July 2022 were included.

RESULTS

Initial Internet and hand searches yielded 280 articles, out of which 126 articles were excluded due to various reasons and 154 articles, were included for the review. This included 84 case reports, 49 original articles, 11 review articles and 10 letters to the editor as comments. We found an increase in the number of publications during the period of 2010-2022 compared to 1997-2009 in all types of publications. Over the years a significant proportion of the articles focused on various side effects of clozapine, factors associated with response and non-response to clozapine and evaluation of outcomes other than efficacy/effectiveness. However, all the studies were limited to a single centre with no multicentric studies on clozapine.

CONCLUSION

Over the last 12 years or so, there is increase in the number of publications on clozapine. However, there is lack of multicentric studies.

Impact of medications, mood state, and electrode placement on ECT outcomes in treatment-refractory psychosis

BACKGROUND

Treatment-refractory psychosis (TRP) is a significant clinical challenge. While clozapine is frequently effective, alternate or augmentation strategies are often necessary. Evidence supports effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), but questions remain about optimal treatment parameters and impacts of concomitant pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

/Hypothesis: To analyze the impact of clozapine, anticonvulsant medication, mood state, and ECT electrode placement on outcomes in TRP. We hypothesized that ECT would lead to greater reduction in positive symptoms, particularly in patients receiving clozapine.

METHODS

Retrospective study in a tertiary TRP program. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was used for clinical outcomes, with positive subscore as primary outcome. Clinical and ECT data were analyzed using a linear modelling approach, controlling for relevant covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients were included. ECT plus clozapine associated with greater improvement in positive, general, and total symptoms than ECT alone. ECT associated with greater improvement in negative symptoms in depressed patients. Bifrontal placement was mostly equivalent to bitemporal, with greater reduction of positive symptoms in patients receiving clozapine, and associated with lower electrical dose in patients on anticonvulsants. Clozapine increased seizure duration, while anticonvulsants decreased it. Anticonvulsant use in ECT patients associated with equivalent to slightly improved symptom reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

ECT's benefit in TRP may be greatest in patients receiving clozapine. ECT can improve negative symptoms in depressed TRP patients. Bifrontal placement is effective in TRP. Clozapine and anticonvulsants have opposite effects on seizure duration, but anticonvulsants may not adversely affect clinical outcomes of ECT for TRP.

Concurrent conventional & high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment of schizophrenia with co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder: A case report

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) are increasingly being used as add-on treatment options in schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This is reporting of the use of a novel accelerated, symptom-specific, add-on tDCS (combining conventional and high definition) protocol in a patient with both schizophrenia and OCD. The intervention showed clinical utility by reducing both schizophrenia and OCD symptoms.

Clozapine: Why Is It So Uniquely Effective in the Treatment of a Range of Neuropsychiatric Disorders?

Clozapine is superior to other antipsychotics as a therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with increased risk of suicidal behavior. This drug has also been used in the off-label treatment of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder (MDD), and Parkinson's disease (PD). Although usually reserved for severe and treatment-refractory cases, it is interesting that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has also been used in the treatment of these psychiatric disorders, suggesting some common or related mechanisms. A literature review on the applications of clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to the disorders mentioned above was undertaken, and this narrative review was prepared. Although both treatments have multiple actions, evidence to date suggests that the ability to elicit epileptiform activity and alter EEG activity, to increase neuroplasticity and elevate brain levels of neurotrophic factors, to affect imbalances in the relationship between glutamate and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and to reduce inflammation through effects on neuron-glia interactions are common underlying mechanisms of these two treatments. This evidence may explain why clozapine is effective in a range of neuropsychiatric disorders. Future increased investigations into epigenetic and connectomic changes produced by clozapine and ECT should provide valuable information about these two treatments and the disorders they are used to treat.

Characteristics and definitions of ultra-treatment-resistant schizophrenia - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to characterize ultra-treatment-resistant Schizophrenia also known as clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS) patients across clozapine combination and augmentation trials through demographic and clinical baseline data. Furthermore, we investigated the variability and consistency in CRS definitions between studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO were conducted in March 2020. 1541 randomized and non-randomized clinical trials investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological clozapine add-on strategies were screened and a total of 71 studies were included. The primary outcome was the overall symptom score at baseline, measured with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total scores.

RESULTS

Data from 2731 patients were extracted. Patients were overall moderately ill with a mean PANSS total score at baseline of 79.16 (±7.52), a mean duration of illness of 14.64 (±4.14) years with a mean clozapine dose of 436.94 (±87.47) mg/day. Illness severity data were relatively homogenous among patients independently of the augmentation strategy involved, although stark geographical differences were found. Overall, studies showed a large heterogeneity of CRS definitions and insufficient guidelines implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This first meta-analysis characterizing CRS patients and comparing CRS definitions revealed a lack of consistent implementation of a CRS definition from guidelines into clinical trials, compromising the replicability of the results and their applicability in clinical practice. We offer a new score modeled on a best practice definition to help future trials increase their reliability.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for schizophrenia patients treated with clozapine

OBJECTIVES

Biological strategies to improve treatment efficacy in clozapine-treated patients are urgently needed. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) merits consideration as intervention for patients with persistent auditory hallucinations (AH) or negative symptoms (NS) not responding sufficiently to clozapine treatment.

METHODS

Data from 10 international RCTs of rTMS for patients being treated with clozapine were pooled. Two levels of symptomatic response were defined: improvement of ≥20% and ≥50% on study-specific primary endpoint scales. Changes in the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) from baseline to endpoint assessment were also analysed.

RESULTS

Analyses of 131 patients did not reveal a significant difference for ≥20% and ≥50% response thresholds for improvement of AH, negative or total symptoms between active and sham rTMS groups. The number needed to treat (NNT) for an improvement in persistent AH was nine following active rTMS. PANSS scores did not improve significantly from baseline to endpoint between active and sham groups in studies investigating NS and AH.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS as a treatment for persistent symptoms in clozapine-treated patients did not show a beneficial effect of active compared to sham treatment. For AH, the size of the NNTs indicates a possible beneficial effect of rTMS.

Lurasidone Improves Psychopathology and Cognition in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

In addition to clozapine, other atypical antipsychotic drugs pharmacologically similar to clozapine, for example, olanzapine, risperidone, and melperone, are also effective in a similar proportion of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) patients, ~40%. The major goal of this study was to compare 2 doses of lurasidone, another atypical antipsychotic drug, and time to improvement in psychopathology and cognition during a 6-month trial in TRS patients.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

The diagnosis of TRS was based on clinical history and lack of improvement in psychopathology during a 6-week open trial of lurasidone 80 mg/d (phase 1). This was followed by a randomized, double-blind, 24-week trial of lurasidone, comparing 80- and 240-mg/d doses (phase 2).

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Significant non-dose-related improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Total and subscales and in 2 of 7 cognitive domains, speed of processing and executive function, were noted. Twenty-eight (41.8%) of 67 patients in the combined sample improved ≥20% in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Total. Of the 28 responders, 19 (67.9%) first reached ≥20% improvement between weeks 6 and 24 during phase 2, including some who had previously failed to respond to clozapine.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Improvement with lurasidone is comparable with those previously reported for clozapine, melperone, olanzapine, and risperidone in TRS patients. In addition, this study demonstrated that 80 mg/d lurasidone, an effective and tolerable dose for non-TRS patients, was also effective in TRS patients but required longer duration of treatment. Direct comparison of lurasidone with clozapine in TRS patients is indicated.

The safety and efficacy of adjunctive 20-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia: A double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising treatment strategy for negative symptoms. However, the evidence for its efficacy is mixed, with contradictory results between studies due to lack of consensus about the optimal stimulation parameters.

AIM

The present study was planned to assess the safety and efficacy of 20-Hz rTMS over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Lt-DLPFC) with more robust stimulation parameters for adjunctive treatment of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] negative subscore ≥15) were randomized to receive a 4-week treatment with either real-rTMS (n = 15) or sham-rTMS (n = 15). The study outcomes were assessed at baseline, after 5^th and 20^th rTMS sessions with PANSS, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of illness scale, and rTMS side-effect checklist.

RESULTS

There was significantly greater reduction in negative symptoms assessed by SANS score in the real rTMS group, compared with the sham rTMS group. There was no significant difference in the rate of side-effects reported between the two groups. The rTMS treatment was well-tolerated by all the patients, except one seizure episode reported in the active group.

CONCLUSION

The high-frequency rTMS protocol was safe and well-tolerated, provided patients prone to developing seizure were excluded by baseline electroencephalography prior to starting of the treatment. The 20-Hz rTMS over Lt-DLPFC with more robust stimulation parameters (100% motor threshold and 40,000 pulses) might be an effective augmentation strategy for the treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

Efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in schizophrenia patients with treatment-resistant negative symptoms treated with clozapine

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising augmentation treatment for schizophrenia, however there are few controlled studies of rTMS augmentation of clozapine.

METHODS

Using data from the 'rTMS for the Treatment of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia' (RESIS) trial we examined the impact of rTMS on PANSS total, general, positive and negative symptoms among participants on clozapine. rTMS was applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for five treatment sessions/week for 3-weeks as augmentation for patients with a predominant negative syndrome of schizophrenia, as rated on PANSS.

RESULTS

26 participants from the RESIS trial were on clozapine, receiving active (N=12) or sham (N=14) rTMS treatment. In our Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analysis, time×group interactions were significant in the PANSS positive subscale (p=0.003) (not being the corresponding behavioral output for DLPFC stimulation), the PANSS general subscale (p<0.001), the PANSS total scale (p=0.015), but not the PANSS negative subscale (p=0.301) (primary endpoint of the RESIS trial), when all PANSS measurements from screening to day 105 were included. Descriptive data suggests that in the active group the improvement was more pronounced compared to the sham rTMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this largest available clozapine cohort, active rTMS may be more effective than sham rTMS when added to clozapine for positive and total psychotic symptoms. These findings should be interpreted with caution given this is a secondary analysis with a limited number of participants.

Clozapine augmentation strategies - a systematic meta-review of available evidence. Treatment options for clozapine resistance

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for clozapine resistance are diverse whereas, in contrast, the evidence for augmentation or combination strategies is sparse.

AIMS

We aimed to extract levels of evidence from available data and extrapolate recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed/MEDLINE database and in the Cochrane database. Included meta-analyses were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria, with symptom improvement as the endpoint, in order to develop a recommendation grade for each clinical strategy identified.

RESULTS

Our search identified 21 meta-analyses of clozapine combination or augmentation strategies. No strategies met Grade A criteria. Strategies meeting Grade B included combinations with first- or second-generation antipsychotics, augmentation with electroconvulsive therapy for persistent positive symptoms, and combination with certain antidepressants (fluoxetine, duloxetine, citalopram) for persistent negative symptoms. Augmentation strategies with mood-stabilisers, anticonvulsants, glutamatergics, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation or cognitive behavioural therapy met Grades C-D criteria only.

CONCLUSION

More high-quality clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of add-on treatments for symptom improvement in patients with clozapine resistance. Applying definitions of clozapine resistance would improve the reporting of future clinical trials. Augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics and first-generation antipsychotics can be beneficial, but the supporting evidence is from low-quality studies. Electroconvulsive therapy may be effective for clozapine-resistant positive symptoms.

Evaluation of a few discrete clinical markers may predict categorization of actively symptomatic non-acute schizophrenia patients as treatment resistant or responders: A study by ROC curve analysis and multivariate analyses

Here, we used Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to determine whether clinical factors may aid predicting the categorization of schizophrenia patients as Treatment Resistant (TRS) or antipsychotic responsive schizophrenia (ARS). Patients with an established condition of TRS or ARS were assessed for: clinical presentation and course; neurological soft signs (NES); psychopathology by PANSS; cognitive performances; quality of life scale (QLS); functional capacity; social functioning (PSP and SLOF scales). In ROC curve analysis, significance indicated that the Area under curve (AUC) allowed distinguishing between TRS and ARS. Multivariate analyses were additionally used to provide independent predictive analysis. Multiple clinical variables showed significant AUCs. The largest significant AUCs were found for: NES total score; SLOF Area2; QLS subscale; antipsychotic doses. The highest sensitivity was found for NES total score, the highest specificity for previous hospitalizations. The highest Odds Ratio of being included within the TRS category were found for: NES total score (7.5); QLS total score (5.49); and previous hospitalizations (4.76). This same circumscribed group of variables was also found to be predictive of TRS when adopting stepwise logistic regression or discriminant analysis. We concluded that the evaluation of few clinical factors may provide reliable and accurate predictions on whether one schizophrenia patient may be categorized as a TRS.

Treating auditory hallucinations with transcranial direct current stimulation in a double-blind, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could be a treatment option for medication-resistant auditory hallucinations (AH), but so far results have been inconclusive, and large sample trials have been missing. This study used tDCS as a treatment method for these hallucinations in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a relatively large sample size.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients of several diagnostic categories with medication-resistant AH were randomized and treated during 10 sessions of 20 min each, with either 2 mA tDCS or placebo, administered on five consecutive days (i.e., two sessions per day). Anodal stimulation was targeted at the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cathodal stimulation at the left temporoparietal junction. AH severity was assessed using the Auditory Hallucination Rating Scale (AHRS). Other outcome measures were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Stroop, and the Trail Making Test.

RESULTS

AH frequency and severity decreased significantly over time, as did the scores on the total and general subscales of the PANSS. However, there was no significant interaction effect with the treatment group on any of the main outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that tDCS is more effective for medication-resistant AH than placebo, even though AH frequency and severity decreased in both groups. An alternative strategy may be to offer tDCS at an earlier stage of illness. In the light of recent investigations into the neurophysiological mechanisms behind tDCS, we may also have to consider the possibility that tDCS is not able to induce any long-lasting brain changes.

Targeted neural network interventions for auditory hallucinations: Can TMS inform DBS?

The debilitating and refractory nature of auditory hallucinations (AH) in schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders has stimulated investigations into neuromodulatory interventions that target the aberrant neural networks associated with them. Internal or invasive forms of brain stimulation such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) are currently being explored for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. The process of developing and implementing DBS is limited by symptom clustering within psychiatric constructs as well as a scarcity of causal tools with which to predict response, refine targeting or guide clinical decisions. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), an external or non-invasive form of brain stimulation, has shown some promise as a therapeutic intervention for AH but remains relatively underutilized as an investigational probe of clinically relevant neural networks. In this editorial, we propose that TMS has the potential to inform DBS by adding individualized causal evidence to an evaluation processes otherwise devoid of it in patients. Although there are significant limitations and safety concerns regarding DBS, the combination of TMS with computational modeling of neuroimaging and neurophysiological data could provide critical insights into more robust and adaptable network modulation.

Clozapine-resistant schizophrenia – non pharmacological augmentation methods

Clozapine is the drug of choice for drug-resistant schizophrenia, but despite its use, 30-40% patients fail to achieve satisfactory therapeutic effects. In such situations, augmentation attempts are made by both pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods. To date, most of the work has been devoted to pharmacological strategies, much less to augemantation of clozapine with electroconvulsive therapy (C+ECT), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

Aim: The aim of the work is to present biological, non-pharmacological augmentation treatment methods with clozapine.

Material and methods: A review of the literature on non-pharmacological augmentation treatment methods with clozapine was made. PubMed database was searched using key words: drug-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine, ECT, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation and time descriptors: 1980-2017.

Results: Most studies on the possibility of increasing the efficacy of clozapine was devoted to combination therapy with clozapine + electric treatments. They have shown improved efficacy when using these two methods simultaneously from 37.5 to 100%. The only randomized trial so far has also confirmed the effectiveness of this procedure. Despite the described side effects of tachycardia or prolonged seizures, most studies indicate the safety and efficacy of combined use of clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation also appears to be a safe method in patients treated with clozapine. However, further research is needed before ECT can be included in standard TRS treatment algorithms. The data for combining transcranial electrical stimulation with clozapine, come only from descriptions of cases and need to be confirmed in controlled studies.

Conclusions: The results of studies on the possibility of increasing the effectiveness of clozapine using biological non-pharmacological treatment methods indicate a potentially beneficial effect of this type of methods in breaking the super-resistance in schizophrenia. Combination of clozapine and ECT can be considered as the most recommended strategy among these treatment methods.

The Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy Augmentation of Antipsychotic Treatment on Cognitive Functions in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) continues to be a challenge in modern psychiatry. Most of these patients have severe neurocognitive deficits. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has proved effective and safe in the treatment of TRS, but because of potential neurocognitive adverse effects, it is associated with many controversies. The aim of this prospective, open study was to evaluate the effects of ECT augmentation of antipsychotics on cognitive functions in patients with TRS.

METHODS

Overall, 31 inpatients with TRS were included, 16 men, with an average (SD) age of 34.1 (11.187) years. The evaluation of clinical symptoms and global impression, as well as verbal memory, visual memory, working memory, psychomotor speed, verbal fluency, and executive functioning, was conducted before and after the completion of ECT treatment.

RESULTS

We ran a series of paired-samples t tests, and the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons reduced the significance level to P = 0.004. The neurocognitive domains that demonstrated statistically significant improvement were immediate and delayed verbal memory, and executive functioning, whereas statistical trend was observed for visual memory and psychomotor speed. None of the neurocognitive functions exhibited significant deterioration after the ECT treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy was effective in reducing general symptoms of schizophrenia, resulting in more than 30% decrease in the overall symptom severity measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding some limitations of this study, the combination of ECT and antipsychotics has improved several neurocognitive domains, without evidence of worsening of any cognitive functions.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

Transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor vs prefrontal cortex in refractory chronic migraine: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) represents a therapeutic option for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine, the target area for application of the electrical current to the cortex has not yet been well established. Here we sought to determine whether a treatment protocol involving 12 sessions of 2mA, 20min anodal stimulation of the left primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) could offer clinical benefits in the management of pain from migraine. Thirteen participants were assessed before and after treatment, using the Headache Impact Test-6, Visual Analogue Scale and Medical Outcomes Study 36 - Item Short - Form Health Survey. After treatment, group DLPFC exhibited a better performance compared with groups M1 and sham. On intragroup comparison, groups DLPFC and M1 exhibited a greater reduction in headache impact and pain intensity and a higher quality of life after treatment. No significant change was found in group sham. The participants in group M1 exhibited more adverse effects, especially headache, heartburn, and sleepiness, than did those in the other two groups. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a safe and efficacious technique for treating chronic migraine. However, it should be kept in mind that the site of cortical stimulation might modulate the patient's response to treatment.

Adverse events of tDCS and tACS: A review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) have been applied to many research issues because these stimulation techniques can modulate neural activity in the human brain painlessly and non-invasively with weak electrical currents. However, there are no formal safety guidelines for the selection of stimulus parameters in either tDCS or tACS. As a means of gathering the information that is needed to produce safety guidelines, in this article, we summarize the adverse events of tDCS and tACS. In both stimulation techniques, most adverse effects are mild and disappear soon after stimulation. Nevertheless, several papers have reported that, in tDCS, some adverse events persist even after stimulation. The persistent events consist of skin lesions similar to burns, which can arise even in healthy subjects, and mania or hypomania in patients with depression. Recently, one paper reported a pediatric patient presenting with seizure after tDCS, although the causal relationship between stimulation and seizure is not clear. As this seizure is the only serious adverse events yet reported in connection with tDCS, tDCS is considered safe. In tACS, meanwhile, no persistent adverse events have been reported, but considerably fewer reports are available on the safety of tACS than on the safety of tDCS. Therefore, to establish the safety of tDCS and tACS, we need to scan the literature continuously for information on the adverse events of both stimulation techniques. Further safety investigations are also required.