Article

Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and future directions

Department of Neurosciences and Behavior, Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brain Stimulation (Impact Factor: 5.43). 04/2011; 5(3):175-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that delivers low-intensity, direct current to cortical areas facilitating or inhibiting spontaneous neuronal activity. In the past 10 years, tDCS physiologic mechanisms of action have been intensively investigated giving support for the investigation of its applications in clinical neuropsychiatry and rehabilitation. However, new methodologic, ethical, and regulatory issues emerge when translating the findings of preclinical and phase I studies into phase II and III clinical studies. The aim of this comprehensive review is to discuss the key challenges of this process and possible methods to address them. METHODS: We convened a workgroup of researchers in the field to review, discuss, and provide updates and key challenges of tDCS use in clinical research. MAIN FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: We reviewed several basic and clinical studies in the field and identified potential limitations, taking into account the particularities of the technique. We review and discuss the findings into four topics: (1) mechanisms of action of tDCS, parameters of use and computer-based human brain modeling investigating electric current fields and magnitude induced by tDCS; (2) methodologic aspects related to the clinical research of tDCS as divided according to study phase (ie, preclinical, phase I, phase II, and phase III studies); (3) ethical and regulatory concerns; and (4) future directions regarding novel approaches, novel devices, and future studies involving tDCS. Finally, we propose some alternative methods to facilitate clinical research on tDCS.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Marom Bikson, Jul 07, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
662 Views
  • Source
    Dataset: ELS-3
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 03/2015; 9:26. DOI:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00026
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this paper are (i) to compare the excitability of visual cortex in migraine patients with healthy volunteers; and (ii) if an abnormal excitability has been found, to modulate cortical excitability in migraine patients with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and observe their clinical and neurophysiological effects. The study was divided into two steps. A cross-sectional study (step 1) was conducted to compare the cortical excitability of 23 migraineurs (11 with and 12 without aura) on 11 healthy individuals. On step 2, a randomized, double blinded, controlled pilot trial was carried on with 19 migraineurs, randomly divided into: experimental and control group. During 12 sessions, experimental and group received active tDCS to visual cortex and control group received sham tDCS. The headache diary was applied for a total of 90days (before, during and after tDCS sessions). Phosphene threshold (PT) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation was recorded to measure the excitability of the visual cortex before and after each session. Step 1 showed higher level of cortical excitability between migraineurs when compared to healthy volunteers; therefore, cathodal tDCS was applied over visual cortex in step 2. After tDCS application, a significant decrease was observed in a number of migraine attacks, painkiller intake and duration of each attack just in experimental group. The analysis of PT indicated no difference in cortical excitability after tDCS. Findings of the study suggested that inhibitory tDCS on visual cortex might be an alternative and non-pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis. However the clinical improvements of patients after tDCS treatment are not correlated with changes in cortical excitability. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Journal of the Neurological Sciences 12/2014; 349(1-2). DOI:10.1016/j.jns.2014.12.018 · 2.26 Impact Factor