Search

Background and aim: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and metacognitive therapy (MCT) can reduce depressive symptoms as monotherapies or associated with pharmacological treatment. Here, we investigated the effectiveness of combining these treatments in a group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: So far, fourteen participants (10 females, Mage 43 ± 12) out of N= 54 estimated sample size were recruited at the Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health – Fondazione IRRCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milano. All participants were under pharmacological treatment. They were randomly assigned to three groups receiving (i) real tDCS + sham MCT (n= 7); (ii) sham tDCS + MCT (n = 6) (iii) real tDCS + MCT (n= 1). The treatment lasted eight weeks, in which participants had one weekly MCT (groups ii and iii) or clinical interview session (group i) following the tDCS. TDCS was combined with attentional training (20 minutes, 1.5 mA, anode over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and took place three times a week for the first three weeks and then once a week. Clinical standardized questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms, anxiety, worry, rumination, and meta-beliefs were administered before and after the treatment, two weeks, three, six, and twelve months after treatment’s end. Results: Due to sampling distribution, mixed effects models were run, including time and only two groups as fixed factors (i and ii) and participants’ random intercept. Outcome measures revealed an effect of time, showing symptoms reduction after the treatment. Crucially, our results suggested a more robust reduction of worry and negative beliefs in the group receiving MCT compared to the one receiving only tDCS. Conclusions: despite preliminary, our results suggest that MCT can effectively reduce core symptoms contributing to the development and maintenance of MDD. Completing data collection will allow disentangling whether tDCS can boost this ef

Schizophrenia is a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder probably based on complex pathophysiological mechanisms of reduced inhibition, impaired connectivity and reduced plasticity in neural networks. Beside clinical symptomatology, a core feature of schizophrenia is a global cognitive and social disability, which strongly affect patients’ lives and their quality of life. The cognitive impairment involves memory, attention, executive functions, language, facial emotion recognition and theory of mind abilities. Cognitive remediation strategies, in addition to pharmacological and psychological treatments, has received increasing attention in recent years , as well as the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as TMS, which have demonstrated promising therapeutic potential. In order to evaluate the efficacy of TMS to induce improvements in cognitive functioning in schizophrenia, 16 patients were submitted to effective or sham iTBS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during 3 consecutive weeks. In half of patients the neuromodulation was combined with daily cognitive remediation training (Cogpack software), administered immediately after the application of TMS. Clinical, cognitive and social functioning were tested at baseline and at different timepoints after conclusion of the rehabilitation protocol (immediately after the 3 weeks protocol, and after 1, 3 and 6 months). The preliminary results indicate that the proposed TMS protocol induced significant improvements in global cognition, in particular in the domains subserved by the prefrontal cortex and the interconnected regions. In addition, patients submitted to TMS showed major benefits after 1 month from brain stimulation, suggesting that TMS induced long-lasting plastic changes.

Background: Chronic Primary Pain (CPP) is characterized by an intense pain, not explained by lesions/damage to the nervous system, lasting for more than three months. Not all CPP patients benefit from standard pharmacological therapies nor are suitable for invasive neurosurgery treatments. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) uses cortical stimulation to reduce pain by directly altering brain activity, and its effects in treating CPP is still unclear. Objectives: We aimed at evaluating NIBS effects on CPP patients. Methods: A PRISMA systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science in May 2021. English-written, original studies measuring the effects of NIBS on pain perception were considered. The quality of studies was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Robins-I. The meta-analysis was conducted only on sham-controlled double-blinded studies. The pain intensity, measured through visual or numerical rating scales, was used as outcome of interest. Results:134 studies were included, comprising 2444 patients and 5 different Primary Pain conditions. The meta-analysis was run on a preliminary cohort of 42 studies. When compared to sham effects, real NIBS induced a significant decrease of pain intensity (SMD −0.59 [CI: −0.85, −0.34]; p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis did not show any effect of type of NIBS (i.e., rTMS vs tDCS), target region (i.e., DLPFC, M1, S1, dACC, PFC, VC) and protocol type (i.e., excitatory vs inhibitory). Discussions: Our findings show a reduction of perceived pain after real vs sham stimulation. This result was confirmed also separately for tDCS and TMS. The target region, as well as the protocol intensity didn’t influence the results. This suggests that NIBS can be used as an alternative or as a combined approach in CPP treatment, but more randomized clinical trials are needed to further explore the mechanisms underlying its effects.

Objective: Although relatively costly and non-scalable, non-invasive neuromodulation interventions are treatment alternatives for neuropsychiatric disorders. The recent developments of highly-deployable transcranial electric stimulation (tES) systems, combined with mobile-Health technologies, could be incorporated in digital trials to overcome methodological barriers and increase equity of access. The study aims are to discuss the implementation of tES digital trials by performing a systematic scoping review and strategic process mapping, evaluate methodological aspects of tES digital trial designs, and provide Delphi-based recommendations for implementing digital trials using tES. Methods: We convened 61 highly-productive specialists and contacted 8 tES companies to assess 71 issues related to tES digitalization readiness, and processes, barriers, advantages, and opportunities for implementing tES digital trials. Delphi-based recommendations (>60% agreement) were provided. Results: The main strengths/opportunities of tES were: (i) non-pharmacological nature (92% of agreement), safety of these techniques (80%), affordability (88%), and potential scalability (78%). As for weaknesses/threats, we listed insufficient supervision (76%) and unclear regulatory status (69%). Many issues related to methodological biases did not reach consensus. Device appraisal showed moderate digitalization readiness, with high safety and potential for trial implementation, but low connectivity. Conclusions: Panelists recognized the potential of tES for scalability, generalizability, and leverage of digital trials processes; with no consensus about aspects regarding methodological biases. Significance: We further propose and discuss a conceptual framework for exploiting shared aspects between mobile-Health tES technologies with digital trials methodology to drive future efforts for digitizing tES trials.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has broadly disrupted biomedical treatment and research including non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). Moreover, the rapid onset of societal disruption and evolving regulatory restrictions may not have allowed for systematic planning of how clinical and research work may continue throughout the pandemic or be restarted as restrictions are abated. The urgency to provide and develop NIBS as an intervention for diverse neurological and mental health indications, and as a catalyst of fundamental brain research, is not dampened by the parallel efforts to address the most life-threatening aspects of COVID-19; rather in many cases the need for NIBS is heightened including the potential to mitigate mental health consequences related to COVID-19. Objective: To facilitate the re-establishment of access to NIBS clinical services and research operations during the current COVID-19 pandemic and possible future outbreaks, we develop and discuss a framework for balancing the importance of NIBS operations with safety considerations, while addressing the needs of all stakeholders. We focus on Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) - including transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS). Methods: The present consensus paper provides guidelines and good practices for managing and reopening NIBS clinics and laboratories through the immediate and ongoing stages of COVID-19. The document reflects the analysis of experts with domain-relevant expertise spanning NIBS technology, clinical services, and basic and clinical research – with an international perspective. We outline regulatory aspects, human resources, NIBS optimization, as well as accommodations for specific demographics. Results: A model based on three phases (early COVID-19 impact, current practices, and future preparation) with an 11-step checklist (spanning removing or str

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data – emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data – emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.

Background: Neuropsychiatric disorders are a leading source of disability and require novel treatments that target mechanisms of disease. As such disorders are thought to result from aberrant neuronal circuit activity, neuromodulation approaches are of increasing interest given their potential for manipulating circuits directly. Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) with direct currents (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) or alternating currents (transcranial alternating current stimulation, tACS) represent novel, safe, well-tolerated, and relatively inexpensive putative treatment modalities. Objective: This report seeks to promote the science, technology and effective clinical applications of these modalities, identify research challenges, and suggest approaches for addressing these needs in order to achieve rigorous, reproducible findings that can advance clinical treatment. Methods: The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a workshop in September 2016 that brought together experts in basic and human neuroscience, electrical stimulation biophysics and devices, and clinical trial methods to examine the physiological mechanisms underlying tDCS/tACS, technologies and technical strategies for optimizing stimulation protocols, and the state of the science with respect to therapeutic applications and trial designs. Results: Advances in understanding mechanisms, methodological and technological improvements (e.g., electronics, computational models to facilitate proper dosing), and improved clinical trial designs are poised to advance rigorous, reproducible therapeutic applications of these techniques. A number of challenges were identified and meeting participants made recommendations made to address them. Conclusions: These recommendations align with requirements in NIMH funding opportunity announcements to, among other needs, define dosimetry, demonstrate dose/response relationships, implement rigorous blinded trial designs

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 t

The field of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has experienced significant growth in the past 15 years. One of the tES techniques leading this increased interest is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Significant research efforts have been devoted to determining the clinical potential of tDCS in humans. Despite the promising results obtained with tDCS in basic and clinical neuroscience, further progress has been impeded by a lack of clarity on international regulatory pathways. Therefore, a group of research and clinician experts on tDCS were convened to review the research and clinical use of tDCS. This report reviews the regulatory status of tDCS and summarizes the results according to research, off-label, and compassionate use of tDCS in the following countries: Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Portugal, South Korea, Taiwan, and the US. Research use, off label treatment, and compassionate use of tDCS are employed in most of the countries reviewed in this study. It is critical that a global or local effort is organized to pursue definite evidence to either approve and regulate or restrict the use of tDCS in clinical practice on the basis of adequate randomized controlled treatment trials.

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 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. 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 <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude abo

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 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. 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 <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2that are over an order of magnitude above

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a new, non-invasive neuromodulation approach for treating depression that has shown promising efficacy. The aim of this trial was to conduct the first international, multicentre randomised controlled trial of tDCS as a treatment for unipolar and bipolar depression. The study recruited 120 participants across 6 sites in the USA and Australia. Participants received active or sham tDCS (2.5 mA, 20 sessions of 30 min duration over 4 weeks), followed by a 4-week open label active treatment phase and a 4-week taper phase. Mood and neuropsychological outcomes were assessed with the primary antidepressant outcome measure being the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). A neuropsychological battery was administered to assess safety and examine cognitive effects. The study also investigated the possible influence of genetic polymorphisms on outcomes. The trial was triple-blinded. Participants, tDCS treaters and study raters were blinded to each participant's tDCS group allocation in the sham-controlled phase. Specific aspects of tDCS administration, device operation and group allocation were designed to optimise the integrity of blinding. Outcome measures will be tested using a mixed effects repeated measures analysis with the primary factors being Time as a repeated measure, tDCS condition (sham or active) and Diagnosis (unipolar or bipolar). A restricted number of random and fixed factors will be included as required to account for extraneous differences. As a promising treatment, tDCS has excellent potential for translation into widespread clinical use, being cost effective, portable, easy to operate and well tolerated.

The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is cumulative. Treatment protocols typically require multiple consecutive sessions spanning weeks or months. However, traveling to clinic for a tDCS session can present an obstacle to subjects and their caregivers. With modified devices and headgear, tDCS treatment can be administered remotely under clinical supervision, potentially enhancing recruitment, throughput, and convenience. Here we propose standards and protocols for clinical trials utilizing remotely-supervised tDCS with the goal of providing safe, reproducible and well-tolerated stimulation therapy outside of the clinic. The recommendations include: (1) training of staff in tDCS treatment and supervision; (2) assessment of the user’s capability to participate in tDCS remotely; (3) ongoing training procedures and materials including assessments of the user and/or caregiver; (4) simple and fail-safe electrode preparation techniques and tDCS headgear; (5) strict dose control for each session; (6) ongoing monitoring to quantify compliance (device preparation, electrode saturation/placement, stimulation protocol), with corresponding corrective steps as required; (7) monitoring for treatment-emergent adverse effects; (8) guidelines for discontinuation of a session and/or study participation including emergency failsafe procedures tailored to the treatment population’s level of need. These guidelines are intended to provide a minimal level of methodological rigor for clinical trials seeking to apply tDCS outside a specialized treatment center. We outline indication-specific applications (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Depression, Multiple Sclerosis, Palliative Care) following these recommendations that support a standardized framework for evaluating the tolerability and reproducibility of remote-supervised tDCS that, once established, will allow for translation of tDCS clinical trials to a greater size and range of patient populations.