Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and the cardiovascular responses to acute pain in humans

Dose-dependent response of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation on the heart rate variability: An electric field modeling study

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) modulates the autonomic nervous system by activating deeper brain areas via top-down pathway. However, effects on the nervous system are heterogeneous and may depend on the amount of current that penetrates. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the variable effects of tDCS on heart rate variability (HRV), a measure of the functional state of the autonomic nervous system. Using three prefrontal tDCS protocols (1.5, 3 mA and sham), we associated the simulated individual electric field (E-field) magnitude in brain regions of interest with the HRV effects. This was a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled and within-subject trial, in which healthy young-adult participants received tDCS sessions separated by 2 weeks. The brain regions of interest were the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex, insula and amygdala. Overall, 37 participants were investigated, corresponding to a total of 111 tDCS sessions. The findings suggested that HRV, measured by root mean squared of successive differences (RMSSD) and high-frequency HRV (HF-HRV), were significantly increased by the 3.0 mA tDCS when compared to sham and 1.5 mA. No difference was found between sham and 1.5 mA. E-field analysis showed that all brain regions of interest were associated with the HRV outcomes. However, this significance was associated with the protocol intensity, rather than inter-individual brain structural variability. To conclude, our results suggest a dose-dependent effect of tDCS for HRV. Therefore, further research is warranted to investigate the optimal current dose to modulate HRV.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Effects on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and Nociceptive Processing in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity.

METHODS

We systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs.

CONCLUSION

tDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.

Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment Success with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

The study’s objective was to develop a clinical prediction rule that predicts a clinically significant analgesic effect on chronic knee osteoarthritis pain after transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. This is a secondary analysis from a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Data from 51 individuals with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain and an impaired descending pain inhibitory system were used. The intervention comprised a 15-session protocol of anodal primary motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation. Treatment success was defined by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Accuracy statistics were calculated for each potential predictor and for the final model. The final logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.01) and comprised five physical and psychosocial predictor variables that together yielded a positive likelihood ratio of 14.40 (95% CI: 3.66−56.69) and an 85% (95%CI: 60−96%) post-test probability of success. This is the first clinical prediction rule proposed for transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic pain. The model underscores the importance of both physical and psychosocial factors as predictors of the analgesic response to transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. Validation of the proposed clinical prediction rule should be performed in other datasets.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation beneficial for treating pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is often accompanied by emotional dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for reducing pain, depressive and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients, but its therapeutic effect remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the treatment effect of tDCS on pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms of patients suffering from chronic pain, and potential factors that modulate the effectiveness of tDCS.

METHODS

Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of tDCS on pain and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Overall pooled results indicated that the use of tDCS can effectively alleviate short-term pain intensity [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.75 to -0.12, P = 0.007] and depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14, P < 0.001), middle-term depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.11, P = 0.004), long-term depressive symptoms (ES: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.13, P = 0.003) and anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.02, P = 0.03) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

tDCS may be an effective short-term treatment for the improvement of pain intensity and concomitant depression and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients. Stimulation site, stimulation frequency, and type of chronic pain were significant influence factors for the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297693, identifier: CRD42022297693.

Single Session Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Different Cortical Areas

Abstract. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies in healthy volunteers have shown conflicting results in terms of modulation in pain thresholds. The aim of this study was to investigate how single session anodal tDCS and modulated tDCS (mtDCS) of distinct cortical areas affected pain and perception thresholds in healthy participants. Five different stimulation conditions were applied at different cortical sites to 20 healthy volunteers to investigate the effects of tDCS and mtDCS (20 Hz) on pain and perception thresholds. TDCS over the motor cortex (M1), mtDCS over the motor cortex, tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), mtDCS of the DLPFC, and mtDCS over the occipital cortex were the stimulation conditions. All of the stimulations were anodal. The stimulations were given in a randomized order at 20-minute intervals. For comparison, electrical pain and perception thresholds were obtained from the right middle finger before and during the tDCS. After each measurement, participants were asked to give a score to their pain. In repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) test, the Condition × Time interaction showed no significant influence on changes in pain, perception thresholds, and pain scores ( p = .48, p = .89, and p = .50, respectively). However, regardless of the condition types, there was a significant difference in pain and perceptual thresholds during tDCS ( p = .01, p = .025, respectively). Our findings did not support difference in pain and perception modulation by a single session anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC compared to the occipital cortex in healthy volunteers. The increase in all thresholds during tDCS, irrespective of conditions, and peripheral sensations, including an active control group, taken together, suggest a placebo effect of active tDCS. Future studies about pain and perception in healthy subjects should consider the level of experimental pain and a strong placebo effect.

Neuromodulation of somatosensory pain thresholds of the neck musculature using a novel transcranial direct current stimulation montage: a randomized double-blind, sham controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of primary motor cortex (M1) and cathodal of the primary sensory cortex (S1) have previously shown to modulate the sensory thresholds when administered with the reference electrode located over the contralateral supraorbital area (SO). Combining the two stimulation paradigms into one with simultaneous stimulation of the two brain areas (M1 + S1 - tDCS) may result in a synergistic effect inducing a prominent neuromodulation, noticeable in the pain thresholds. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of the novel M1 + S1 - tDCS montage compared to sham-stimulation in modulating the pain thresholds in healthy adults.

METHODS

Thirty-nine (20 males) subjects were randomly assigned to either receiving 20 min. active M1 + S1 - tDCS or sham tDCS in a double-blinded single session study. Thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain thresholds within either group, or between the M1 + S1 - tDCS group and the Sham-tDCS group (p>0.05), indicating that the intervention was ineffective in inducing a neuromodulation of the somatosensory system.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental investigations of novel tDCS electrode montages, that are scientifically based on existing studies or computational modelling, are essential to establish better tDCS protocols. Here simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex and primary sensory cortex showed no effect on the pain thresholds of the neck musculature in healthy subjects. This tDCS montage may have been ineffective due to how the electrical field reaches the targeted neurons, or may have been limited by the design of a single tDCS administration. The study adds to the existing literature of the studies investigating effects of new tDCS montages with the aim of establishing novel non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for chronic neck pain rehabilitation. North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (VN-20180085) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04658485).

The effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on heart rate and heart rate variability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation are widely used to test the involvement of specific cortical regions in various domains such as cognition and emotion. Despite the capability of stimulation techniques to test causal directions, this approach has been only sparsely used to examine the cortical regulation of autonomic nervous system (ANS) functions such as heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) and to test current models in this regard. In this preregistered (PROSPERO) systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate, based on meta-regression, whether NIBS represents an effective method for modulating HR and HRV measures, and to evaluate whether the ANS is modulated by cortical mechanisms affected by NIBS. Here we have adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. In a series of four meta-analyses, a total of 131 effect sizes from 35 sham-controlled trials were analyzed using robust variance estimation random-effects meta-regression technique. NIBS was found to effectively modulate HR and HRV with small to medium effect sizes. Moderator analyses yielded significant differences in effects between stimulation of distinct cortical areas. Our results show that NIBS is a promising tool to investigate the cortical regulation of ANS, which may add to the existing brain imaging and animal study literature. Future research is needed to identify further factors modulating the size of effects. As many of the studies reviewed were found to be at high risk of bias, we recommend that methods to reduce potential risk of bias be used in the design and conduct of future studies.

Analgesia induced by anodal tDCS and high-frequency tRNS over the motor cortex: Immediate and sustained effects on pain perception

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) and high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) on elevating cortical excitability. Moreover, tRNS with a direct current (DC)-offset is more likely to lead to increases in cortical excitability than solely tRNS. While a-tDCS over primary motor cortex (M1) has been shown to attenuate pain perception, tRNS + DC-offset may prove as an effective means for pain relief.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine effects of a-tDCS and high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset over M1 on pain expectation and perception, and assess whether these effects could be influenced by the certainty of pain expectation.

METHODS

Using a double-blinded and sham-controlled design, 150 healthy participants were recruited to receive a single-session a-tDCS, high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset, or sham stimulation over M1. The expectation and perception of electrical stimulation in certain and uncertain contexts were assessed at baseline, immediately after, and 30 min after stimulation.

RESULTS

Compared with sham stimulation, a-tDCS induced immediate analgesic effects that were greater when the stimulation outcome was expected with uncertainty; tRNS induced immediate and sustained analgesic effects that were mediated by decreasing pain expectation. Nevertheless, we found no strong evidence for tRNS being more effective for attenuating pain than a-tDCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic effects of a-tDCS and tRNS showed different temporal courses, which could be related to the more sustained effectiveness of high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset in elevating cortical excitability. Moreover, expectations of pain intensity should be taken into consideration to maximize the benefits of neuromodulation.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

Cardiovascular Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Bimanual Training in Children With Cerebral Palsy

PURPOSE

To determine the influence of combined transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the motor cortex (M1) and bimanual training on cardiovascular function in children with cerebral palsy (CP).

METHODS

Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and HR variability (HRV) were measured immediately before and after 20 minutes of cathodal tDCS to contralesional M1 and bimanual training on days 1, 6, and 10 of a 10-day trial in 8 participants (5 females, 7-19 years).

RESULTS

Baseline MAP and HR were similar across days (93 ± 10 mm Hg and 90 ± 10 bpm, P > .05). MAP was similar from baseline to postintervention across all 3 days. Systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, nor HR significantly changed. HRV was not influenced by the 10-day intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined cathodal tDCS to M1 and bimanual training does not influence autonomic and cardiovascular function in children with CP due to perinatal stroke.

Changes in Experimental Pain Sensitivity from Using Home-Based Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

The present study examined the effects of home-based remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation on quantitative sensory testing measurements in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Participants were hypothesized to experience improved pain measurements over time.

DESIGN

Open-label, single-arm trial.

SETTING

Southeast Texas between March and November 2018 at a nursing school and participant homes.

SUBJECTS

Older adults (aged 50-85 years) with self-reported unilateral or bilateral knee osteoarthritis pain who met eligibility criteria set by the American College of Rheumatology.

METHODS

The intervention was applied with a constant current intensity for 20 minutes every weekday for two weeks (10 total sessions). Quantitative measures of pain were collected three times over 10 days (days 1, 5, and 10) and included heat threshold and tolerance, pressure pain threshold, punctate mechanical pain, pain, and conditioned pain modulation. Analyses used nonparametric tests to evaluate differences between day 1 and day 10. Generalized linear mixed models were then used to evaluate change across all three time points for each measure. Bayesian inference was used to provide the posterior probability of longitudinal effects.

RESULTS

Nonparametric tests found improvements in seven measures, and longitudinal models supported improvements in 10 measures, with some nonlinear effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The home-based, remotely supervised intervention improved quantitative measurements of pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting home-based noninvasive stimulation interventions.

Acute offline transcranial direct current stimulation does not change pain or anxiety produced by the cold pressor test

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) has an antalgic effect on acute experimental pain in healthy volunteers. Many published studies have used online stimulation (i.e., tDCS performed during painful stimulation). On the other hand, daily tDCS sessions have been proposed as a therapy for chronic pain (offline tDCS). In such cases, the therapeutic potential depends on the possible aftereffects of each tDCS session. We set out to investigate whether a single tDCS session before application of a classical experimental pain paradigm (the Cold Pressor Test, CPT) would be capable of modulating physiological measures of anxiety as well as pain perception. tDCS was applied to 30 healthy volunteers, 18-28 years old (mean 18.5), with the anode positioned over either the left M1 or the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC), which has been linked to the affective aspects of experienced pain, including anxiety. All volunteers underwent the CPT procedure before and after a tDCS session. Real 2 mA tDCS sessions for 20 min were compared to sham stimulations. No significant difference was found for any variable after real tDCS sessions when compared to the sham stimulations. This result suggests that effective offline tDCS for chronic pain might have different mechanisms of action. Cumulative effects, functional targeting and the unintended simultaneous stimulation of both M1 and the l-DLPFC are likely responsible for the therapeutic effects of tDCS sessions in the clinical setting.

Assessing neurophysiological changes associated with combined transcranial direct current stimulation and cognitive-emotional training for treatment-resistant depression

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, is a promising treatment for depression. Recent research suggests that tDCS efficacy can be augmented using concurrent cognitive-emotional training (CET). However, the neurophysiological changes associated with this combined intervention remain to be elucidated. We therefore examined the effects of tDCS combined with CET using electroencephalography (EEG). A total of 20 participants with treatment-resistant depression took part in this open-label study and received 18 sessions over 6 weeks of tDCS and concurrent CET. Resting-state and task-related EEG during a 3-back working memory task were acquired at baseline and immediately following the treatment course. Results showed an improvement in mood and working memory accuracy, but not response time, following the intervention. We did not find significant effects of the intervention on resting-state power spectral density (frontal theta and alpha asymmetry), time-frequency power (alpha event-related desynchronisation and theta event-related synchronisation) or event-related potentials (P2 and P3 components). We therefore identified little evidence of neurophysiological changes associated with treatment using tDCS and concurrent CET, despite significant improvements in mood and near-transfer effects of cognitive training to working memory accuracy. Further research incorporating a sham-controlled group may be necessary to identify the neurophysiological effects of the intervention.

Postexercise blood pressure and autonomic responses after aerobic exercise following anodal tDCS applied over the medial prefrontal cortex

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is acknowledged to modulate autonomic cardiac activity and hemodynamic responses at rest and during exercise. However, its potential to optimize postexercise hypotension (PEH) has not been investigated. This study investigated the effects of anodal tDCS applied over the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) upon blood pressure (BP) and heart rate variability (HRV) throughout 60 min following acute aerobic exercise. Fifteen young men (27.5 ± 5.2 yrs; 72.9 ± 8 kg; 170 ± 0.1 cm; 124.1 ± 1.9/67.7 ± 2.1 mmHg) underwent three counterbalanced experimental sessions: a) anodal tDCS + exercise (tDCS); b) sham stimulation + exercise (SHAM); c) non-exercise control (CONT). Exercise consisted in 50-min cycling at 65-70% heart rate reserve. BP and HRV were assessed during 60-min postexercise. Mean reduction in systolic BP occurred after tDCS vs. SHAM (-4.1 mmHg; P=0.03) and CONT (-5.8 mmHg; P=0.003), and in MAP vs. CONT (-3.0 mmHg, P=0.03). Parasympathetic activity lowered after tDCS and SHAM vs. CONT, as respectively reflected by R-R intervals (-328.1% and -396.4%; P = 0.001), SDNN (-155.7% and -193.4%; P = 0.006), and pNN50 (-272.3% and -259.1%; P = 0.021). There was a clear tendency of increased sympatho-vagal balance vs. CONT (P = 0.387) after SHAM (+246.3%), but not tDCS (+25.9%). In conclusion, an aerobic exercise bout preceded by tDCS applied over mPFC induced PEH in normotensive men. Parasympathetic activity lowered, while sympatho-vagal balance increased after both tDCS and SHAM vs. CONT. However, these responses seemed to be tempered by anodal stimulation, which might help explaining the occurrence of PEH after tDCS and not SHAM. These findings warrant further research on the role of tDCS within exercise programs aiming at BP management.

Brain oscillations reflecting pain-related behavior in freely moving rats

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

We comprehensively characterized the physiological properties of pain-related brain oscillations in freely moving rats and provided a foundation for the animal-to-human translation of experimental findings.

Recording oscillatory brain activity holds great promise in pain research. However, experimental results are variable and often difficult to reconcile. Some of these inconsistencies arise from the use of hypothesis-driven analysis approaches that (1) do not assess the consistency of the observed responses within and across individuals, and (2) do not fully exploit information sampled across the entire cortex. Here, we address these issues by recording the electrocorticogram directly from the brain surface of 12 freely moving rats. Using a hypothesis-free approach, we isolated brain oscillations induced by graded nociceptive stimuli and characterized their relation to pain-related behavior. We isolated 4 responses, one phase-locked event-related potential, 2 non–phase-locked event-related synchronizations, and one non–phase-locked event-related desynchronization (ERD), in different frequency bands (δ/θ-ERD, θ/α–event-related synchronization, and gamma-band event-related synchronization). All responses except the δ/θ-ERD correlated with pain-related behavior at within-subject level. Notably, the gamma-band event-related synchronization was the only response that reliably correlated with pain-related behavior between subjects. These results comprehensively characterize the physiological properties of the brain oscillations elicited by nociceptive stimuli in freely moving rodents and provide a foundational work to improve the translation of experimental animal findings to human physiology and pathophysiology.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain in Elderly Subjects With Defective Endogenous Pain-Inhibitory Systems: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been the main cause behind chronic pain and disabilities in the elderly population. The traditional treatment for knee OA pain currently concerns a number of combinations of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. However, such combinations have displayed little effects on a significant group of subjects. In addition to this, pharmacological treatments often cause adverse effects, which limits their use on this population. Previous studies showed that chronic knee OA pain may be associated with maladaptive compensatory plasticity in pain-related neural central circuits indexed by a defective descending pain-inhibitory system. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can revert some of these maladaptive changes, thus decreasing chronic pain sensation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of anodal tDCS stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1) has positive effects on chronic neuropathic pain. Yet, data on OA pain in elderly patients, including its effects on the endogenous pain-inhibitory system, remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in reducing pain intensity caused by knee OA in elderly subjects with defective endogenous pain-inhibitory systems.

METHODS

We designed a randomized, sham-controlled, single-center, double-blinded clinical trial. Patients with knee OA who have maintained a chronic pain level during the previous 6 months and report a pain score of 4 or more on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain in that period will undergo a conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task. Participants who present a reduced CPM response, defined as a decrease in NRS during the CPM task of less than 10%, and meet all of the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to receive 15 sessions of 2 mA active or sham tDCS for 20 minutes. A sample size of 94 subjects was calculated. The Brief Pain Inventory pain items will be used to assess pain intensity as our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include pain impact on functioning, mobility performance, quality of life, CPM, pressure pain threshold, touch-test sensory evaluation, and safety. Follow-up visits will be performed 2, 4, and 8 weeks following intervention. The data will be analyzed using the principle of intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

This study was approved by the institutional review board with the protocol number 1685/2016. The enrollment started in April 2018; at the time of publication of this protocol, 25 subjects have been enrolled. We estimate we will complete the enrollment process within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial will provide relevant data to evaluate if anodal tDCS stimulation over M1 can decrease chronic knee OA pain in elderly subjects with defective CPM. In addition, this trial will advance the investigation of the role of central sensitization in knee OA and evaluate how tDCS stimulation may affect it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03117231; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03117231 (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/73WM1LCdJ).

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/11660.

Mitigation of stress: new treatment alternatives

Complaints of stress are common in modern life. Psychological stress is a major cause of lifestyle-related issues, contributing to poor quality of life. Chronic stress impedes brain function, causing impairment of many executive functions, including working memory, decision making and attentional control. The current study sought to describe newly developed stress mitigation techniques, and their influence on autonomic and endocrine functions. The literature search revealed that the most frequently studied technique for stress mitigation was biofeedback (BFB). However, evidence suggests that neurofeedback (NFB) and noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) could potentially provide appropriate approaches. We found that recent studies of BFB methods have typically used measures of heart rate variability, respiration and skin conductance. In contrast, studies of NFB methods have typically utilized neurocomputation techniques employing electroencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging and near infrared spectroscopy. NIBS studies have typically utilized transcranial direct current stimulation methods. Mitigation of stress is a challenging but important research target for improving quality of life.