Targeting the prefrontal-supplementary motor network in obsessive-compulsive disorder with intensified electrical stimulation in two dosages: a randomized, controlled trial.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is associated with a high disease burden, and treatment options are limited. We used intensified electrical stimulation in two dosages to target a main circuitry associated with the pathophysiology of OCD, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC), and pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and assessed clinical outcomes, neuropsychological performance, and brain physiology. In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, thirty-nine patients with OCD were randomly assigned to three groups of sham, 2-mA, or 1-mA transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting the l-DLPFC (F3) and pre-SMA (FC2) with anodal and cathodal stimulation respectively. The treatment included 10 sessions of 20-minute stimulation delivered twice per day with 20-min between-session intervals. Outcome measures were reduction in OCD symptoms, anxiety, and depressive states, performance on a neuropsychological test battery (response inhibition, working memory, attention), oscillatory brain activities, and functional connectivity. All outcome measures except EEG were examined at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 1-month follow-up times. The 2-mA protocol significantly reduced OCD symptoms, anxiety, and depression states and improved quality of life after the intervention up to 1-month follow-up compared to the sham group, while the 1-mA protocol reduced OCD symptoms only in the follow-up and depressive state immediately after and 1-month following the intervention. Both protocols partially improved response inhibition, and the 2-mA protocol reduced attention bias to OCD-related stimuli and improved reaction time in working memory performance. Both protocols increased alpha oscillatory power, and the 2-mA protocol decreased delta power as well. Both protocols increased connectivity in higher frequency bands at frontal-central areas compared to the sham. Modulation of the prefrontal-supplementary motor network with intensified tDCS ameliorates OCD clinical symptoms and results in beneficial cognitive effects. The 2-mA intensified stimulation resulted in larger symptom reduction and improved more converging outcome variables related to therapeutic efficacy. These results support applying the intensified prefrontal-SMA tDCS in larger trials.

Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Level and Disability of Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials with Parallel-Group Design.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been increasingly applied in fibromyalgia (FM) to reduce pain and fatigue. While results are promising, observed effects are variable, and there are questions about optimal stimulation parameters such as target region (e.g., motor vs. prefrontal cortices). This systematic review aimed to provide the latest update on published randomized controlled trials with a parallel-group design to examine the specific effects of active tDCS in reducing pain and disability in FM patients. Using the PRISMA approach, a literature search identified 14 randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of tDCS on pain and fatigue in patients with FM. Assessment of biases shows an overall low-to-moderate risk of bias. tDCS was found effective in all included studies conducted in patients with FM, except one study, in which the improving effects of tDCS were due to placebo. We recommended tDCS over the motor and prefrontal cortices as "effective" and "probably effective" respectively, and also safe for reducing pain perception and fatigue in patients with FM, according to evidence-based guidelines. Stimulation polarity was anodal in all studies, and one single-session study also examined cathodal polarity. The stimulation intensity ranged from 1-mA (7.14% of studies) to 1.5-mA (7.14% of studies) and 2-mA (85.7% of studies). In all of the included studies, a significant improvement in at least one outcome variable (pain or fatigue reduction) was observed. Moreover, 92.8% (13 of 14) applied multi-session tDCS protocols in FM treatment and reported significant improvement in their outcome variables. While tDCS is therapeutically effective for FM, titration studies that systematically evaluate different stimulation intensities, durations, and electrode placement are needed.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in major neurodevelopmental disorders: ADHD, autism, and dyslexia.

OBJECTIVE: Among the target groups in child and adolescent psychiatry, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been more applied in neurodevelopmental disorders specifically, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and dyslexia. This systematic review aims to provide the latest update on published randomized-controlled trials applying tDCS in these disorders for evaluating its efficacy and safety. METHODS: Based on a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022321430) and using the PRISMA approach, a literature search identified 35 randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of tDCS on children and adolescents with ADHD (n = 17), ASD (n = 11), and dyslexia (n = 7). RESULTS: In ADHD, prefrontal anodal tDCS is reported more effective compared to stimulation of the right inferior frontal gyrus. Similarly in ASD, prefrontal anodal tDCS was found effective for improving behavioral problems. In dyslexia, stimulating temporoparietal regions was the most common and effective protocol. In ASD and dyslexia, all tDCS studies found an improvement in at least one of the outcome variables while 64.7% of studies (11 of 17) in ADHD found a similar effect. About 88% of all tDCS studies with a multi-session design in 3 disorders (16 of 18) reported a significant improvement in one or all outcome variables after the intervention. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trials consisted of around 70.5%, 36.3%, and 57.1% of tDCS studies in ADHD, ASD, and dyslexia, respectively. tDCS was found safe with no reported serious side effects in 6587 sessions conducted on 745 children and adolescents across 35 studies. CONCLUSION: tDCS was found safe and partially effective. For evaluation of clinical utility, larger randomized controlled trials with a double-blind design and follow-up measurements are required. Titration studies that systematically evaluate different stimulation intensities, duration, and electrode placement are lacking.

Intensified electrical stimulation targeting lateral and medial prefrontal cortices for the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is the most common anxiety disorder while remains largely untreated. Disturbed amygdala-frontal network functions are central to the pathophysiology of SAD, marked by hypoactivity of the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), and hypersensitivity of the medial PFC and the amygdala. The objective of this study was to determine whether modulation of the dorsolateral and medial PFC activity with a novel intensified stimulation protocol reduces SAD core symptoms, improves treatment-related variables, and reduces attention bias to threatening stimuli. METHODS: In this randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial, we assessed the efficacy of an intensified stimulation protocol (20 min, twice-daily sessions with 20 min intervals, 5 consecutive days) in two intensities (1 vs 2 mA) compared to sham stimulations. 45 patients with SAD were randomized in three tDCS arms (1-mA, 2-mA, sham). SAD symptoms, treatment-related variables (worries, depressive state, emotion regulation, quality of life), and attention bias to threatening stimuli (dot-probe paradigm) were assessed before and right after the intervention. SAD symptoms were also assessed at 2-month follow-up. RESULTS: Both 1-mA and 2-mA protocols significantly reduced fear/avoidance symptoms, worries and improved, emotion regulation and quality of life after the intervention compared to the sham group. Improving effect of the 2-mA protocol on avoidance symptoms, worries and depressive state was significantly larger than the 1-mA group. Only the 2-mA protocol reduced attention bias to threat-related stimuli, the avoidance symptom at follow-up, and depressive states, as compared to the sham group. CONCLUSIONS: Modulation of lateral-medial PFC activity with intensified stimulation can improve cognitive control, motivation and emotion networks in SAD and might thereby result in therapeutic effects. These effects can be larger with 2-mA vs 1-mA intensities, though a linear relationship between intensity and efficacy should not be concluded. Our results need replication in larger trials.