Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to Prevent and Treat Symptoms Related to Stress: A Potential Tool to Remediate the Behavioral Consequences of the COVID-19 Isolation Measures?

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Promotes state-dependent Effects on Neuroinflammatory and Behavioral Parameters in rats Chronically Exposed to Stress and a Hyper-Palatable Diet

Chronic stress is a common condition affecting health, often associated with unhealthy eating habits. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been proposed to address these issues. Thus, this research investigated the effects of tDCS on biometric, behavioral, and neurochemical parameters in chronically stressed rats fed a hyper-palatable cafeteria diet (CAFD). The study lasted 8 weeks, with CAFD exposure and/or chronic restraint stress model (CRS - 1 h/day, 5 days/week, for 7 weeks) started concurrently. tDCS or sham sessions were applied between days 42 and 49 (0.5 mA, 20 min/day). CAFD increased body weight, caloric consumption, adiposity, and liver weight. It also altered central parameters, reducing anxiety and cortical levels of IL-10 and BDNF. In turn, the CRS resulted in increased adrenals in rats with standard diet (SD), and anxiety-like and anhedonic behaviors in rats with CAFD. tDCS provided neurochemical shifts in CAFD-fed stressed rats increasing central levels of TNF-α and IL-10, while in stressed rats SD-fed induced a decrease in the adrenals weight, relative visceral adiposity, and serum NPY levels. These data demonstrated the anxiolytic effect of CAFD and anxiogenic effect of stress in CAFD-fed animals. In addition, tDCS promoted state-dependent effects on neuroinflammatory and behavioral parameters in rats chronically exposed to stress and a hyper-palatable diet. These findings provide primary evidence for additional mechanistic and preclinical studies of the tDCS technique for stress-related eating disorders, envisioning clinical applicability.

Design and Evaluation of a Potential Non-Invasive Neurostimulation Strategy for Treating Persistent Anosmia in Post-COVID-19 Patients

A new pandemic was declared at the end of 2019 because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One of the effects of COVID-19 infection is anosmia (i.e., a loss of smell). Unfortunately, this olfactory dysfunction is persistent in around 5% of the world's population, and there is not an effective treatment for it yet. The aim of this paper is to describe a potential non-invasive neurostimulation strategy for treating persistent anosmia in post-COVID-19 patients. In order to design the neurostimulation strategy, 25 subjects who experienced anosmia due to COVID-19 infection underwent an olfactory assessment while their electroencephalographic (EEG) signals were recorded. These signals were used to investigate the activation of brain regions during the olfactory process and identify which regions would be suitable for neurostimulation. Afterwards, 15 subjects participated in the evaluation of the neurostimulation strategy, which was based on applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in selected brain regions related to olfactory function. The results showed that subjects with lower scores in the olfactory assessment obtained greater improvement than the other subjects. Thus, tDCS could be a promising option for people who have not fully regained their sense of smell following COVID-19 infection.

The Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Potential Influencers of Clinical Effect

BACKGROUND

There is tentative evidence to support the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in fibromyalgia (FM), with large variability in the effect size (ES) encountered in different clinical trials. Understanding the source of the variability and exploring how it relates to the clinical results could characterize effective neuromodulation protocols and ultimately guide care in FM pain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of tDCS in FM pain as compared with sham tDCS. The secondary objective was to explore the relationship of methodology, population, and intervention factors and the analgesic effect of tDCS in FM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the primary objective, a systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating tDCS as an intervention for FM pain were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web Of Science. Studies were excluded if they used cross-over designs or if they did not use tDCS as an intervention for pain or did not measure clinical pain. Analysis for the main outcome was performed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed for all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the secondary objective, a meta-regression was conducted to explore methodology, population, and intervention factors potentially related to the ES.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Six studies presented a high risk of bias. Significant reduction in pain scores were found for FM (standardized mean difference = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.80-1.65, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis considering tDCS as a neural target revealed no differences between common neural sites. Meta-regression revealed that the duration of the tDCS protocol in weeks was the only factor associated with the ES, in which protocols that lasted four weeks or longer reported larger ES than shorter protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest an analgesic effect of tDCS in FM. tDCS protocols that last four weeks or more may be associated with larger ESs. Definite conclusions are inadequate given the large heterogeneity and limited quality of evidence of the included studies.

Effects of left anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity in depression: a randomized controlled pilot trial

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of left anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPAA) activity in individuals with depression. We conducted a 3-week, randomized, triple-blind pilot trial with 47 participants (dropout rate: 14.89%) randomly assigned to either the tDCS or control group (sham stimulation). Salivary cortisol was used as an HPAA activity marker since cortisol is the effector hormone of the HPAA. The primary outcome was the effect of tDCS on the diurnal cortisol pattern (DCP and area under the curve with respect to ground -AUCg-). Secondary outcomes included tDCS effects on cortisol awakening response (CAR) and cortisol decline (CD), as well as the variation of cortisol concentrations between the initiation of tDCS and 2 weeks later. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted. Our primary outcome showed an absent effect of tDCS on DCP and AUCg. Additionally, tDCS had an absent effect on CAR, CD, and cortisol concentration variation before-after stimulation. Our pilot study suggests that anodal tDCS showed an absent effect on HPAA activity in individuals with depression. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement

•

The available data frame with a wide parameter space of tES does not allow an overarching protocol recommendation.

•

Established engineering risk-management procedures with regard to manufacturing should be followed.

•

Consensus among experts is that tES for neuroenhancement is safe as long as tested protocols are followed.

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans.

Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject’s age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be “safe” where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects.

Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs.

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and motor imagery for phantom limb pain using statistical learning to predict treatment response: an open-label study protocol

BACKGROUND

Phantom limb pain (PLP) management has been a challenge due to its response heterogeneity and lack of treatment access. This study will evaluate the feasibility of a remotely home-based M1 anodal tDCS combined with motor imagery in phantom limb patients and assess the preliminary efficacy, safety, and predictors of response of this therapy.

METHODS

This is a pilot, single-arm, open-label trial in which we will recruit 10 subjects with phantom limb pain. The study will include 20 sessions. All participants will receive active anodal M1 tDCS combined with phantom limb motor imagery training. Our primary outcome will be the acceptability and feasibility of this combined intervention. Moreover, we will assess preliminary clinical (pain intensity) and physiological (motor inhibition tasks and heart rate variability) changes after treatment. Finally, we will implement a supervised statistical learning (SL) model to identify predictors of treatment response (to tDCS and phantom limb motor imagery) in PLP patients. We will also use data from our previous clinical trial (total observations=224 [n=112 x timepoints = 2)) for our statistical learning algorithms. The new prospective data from this open-label study will be used as an independent test dataset.

DISCUSSION

This protocol proposes to assess the feasibility of a novel, neuromodulatory combined intervention that will allow the design of larger remote clinical trials, thus increasing access to safe and effective treatments for PLP patients. Moreover, this study will allow us to identify possible predictors of pain response and PLP clinical endotypes.

Update on the Use of Transcranial Electrical Brain Stimulation to Manage Acute and Chronic COVID-19 Symptoms

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the urgent need to develop and deploy treatment approaches that can minimize mortality and morbidity. As infection, resulting illness, and the often prolonged recovery period continue to be characterized, therapeutic roles for transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) have emerged as promising non-pharmacological interventions. tES techniques have established therapeutic potential for managing a range of conditions relevant to COVID-19 illness and recovery, and may further be relevant for the general management of increased mental health problems during this time. Furthermore, these tES techniques can be inexpensive, portable, and allow for trained self-administration. Here, we summarize the rationale for using tES techniques, specifically transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), across the COVID-19 clinical course, and index ongoing efforts to evaluate the inclusion of tES optimal clinical care.