Efficacy of neuromodulation techniques (TMS and tDCS) in cancer pain management: A systematic review

International Conference on Transcranial Magnetic and Direct Current Stimulation

Treatment of Cancer Pain with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

Transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation compared: Does TES activate intracortical neuronal circuits?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary somatosensory cortex on the recovery of somatosensation, motor function, and the activities of daily living in patients with subacute stroke. This study was a prospective, randomized sham controlled, double-blinded study. Patients with subacute stroke having somatosensory deficits (N = 24) were enrolled and assigned randomly to the anodal and sham stimulation groups. Patients received 10 consecutive anodal or sham transcranial direct current stimulations over the primary somatosensory cortex on the side of the stroke lesion. Before and after each stimulation session, Nottingham sensory assessments, Semmes Weinstein monofilaments examination, and manual function tests were performed, and modified Brunnstrom classification, modified Barthel index, and functional ambulation categories were assessed. Although there was no clear significant difference between the two groups, when the changes from baseline to posttreatment evaluation were compared between the groups, a partially significant improvement was observed in the anodal stimulation group compared with the sham stimulation group. Interestingly, the tactile sensation of the unaffected side also improved. Moreover, the greater improvement in activities of daily living function was observed in the anodal stimulation group too. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary somatosensory cortex may be a useful adjuvant therapy for the recovery of somatosensation and activities of daily living function in patients with sensory deficits after stroke.

To systematically review the literature to date applying repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Electronic bibliography databases screened included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. The keyword "fibromyalgia" was combined with ("transcranial" and "stimulation") or "TMS" or "tDCS" or "transcranial magnetic stimulation" or "transcranial direct current stimulation". Nine of 23 studies were included; brain stimulation sites comprised either the primary motor cortex (M1) or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Five studies used rTMS (high-frequency-M1: 2, low-frequency-DLPFC: 2, high-frequency-DLPFC: 1), while 4 applied tDCS (anodal-M1: 1, anodal-M1/DLPFC: 3). Eight were double-blinded, randomized controlled trials. Most (80%) rTMS studies that measured pain reported significant decreases, while all (100%) tDCS studies with pain measures reported significant decreases. Greater longevity of significant pain reductions was observed for excitatory M1 rTMS/tDCS. Studies involving excitatory rTMS/tDCS at M1 showed analogous pain reductions as well as considerably fewer side effects compared to FDA apaproved FMS pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported side effects were mild, including transient headaches and scalp discomforts at the stimulation site. Yearly use of rTMS/tDCS regimens appears costly ($11,740 to 14,507/year); however, analyses to apapropriately weigh these costs against clinical and quality of life benefits for patients with FMS are lacking. Consequently, rTMS/tDCS should be considered when treating patients with FMS, particularly those who are unable to find adequate symptom relief with other therapies. Further work into optimal stimulation parameters and standardized outcome measures is needed to clarify associated efficacy and effectiveness.

Aims: Non-invasive brain stimulation (“neuromodulation”) techniques, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), are used to modulate brain excitability and connectivity. TMS is approved for treating depression in the United Kingdom and preliminary evidence suggests that combining TMS and TES may enhance therapeutic effects. While neuromodulation is generally well-tolerated in research settings, its acceptability among the broader patient population remains unclear due to limited exposure, awareness, and information accessibility. Understanding prospective acceptability, defined as the perceived appropriateness of an intervention before its application, is crucial for improving treatment uptake and addressing concerns about safety and feasibility. We aimed to co-produce a survey with lived experience experts to assess the acceptability of individual and combined neuromodulation techniques among potential service users.Methods: The study was co-developed with our Neuromodulation Experts-by-experience Advisory patient and public involvement (PPI) group. We underwent three rounds of iterative feedback to refine the survey focus, structure, and questions. A scoping review of existing literature on prospective acceptability of neuromodulation techniques informed the content, alongside the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Given the novelty of combined (TMS+TES) neuromodulation, no prior informational materials exist. PPI members advised it was critical to produce accompanying videos and leaflets to briefly illustrate the different neuromodulation techniques. The video scripts and leaflet content were produced in collaboration with three PPI members who tried the neuromodulation techniques, to avoid rehearsed scripts and ensure honest reviews of the techniques.Results: The final survey version was adapted to maximise clarity of questions, engagement, and completion rates. The survey incorporated questions on awareness, perceived effectiveness, ethical considerations, and practical burden of different neuromodulation techniques. Online and paper versions of the survey were created to ensure accessibility. We successfully produced three information videos within 90-second target duration featuring PPI members and lead researchers. We developed a supplementary infographic leaflet for enhanced comprehension and accessibility.Conclusion: Engaging stakeholders through PPI was instrumental in developing the survey to ensure accessibility and relevance for diverse participants with lived experience of mental health conditions. End-user involvement in the design process improved survey comprehensibility, highlighting the importance of co-production in developing effective research tools. Findings from this survey will provide insights into the acceptability of novel neuromodulation techniques, ultimately informing future clinical implementation and patient-centred research strategies.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) are neuromodulatory techniques with therapeutic potential for similar disorders; however, their molecular effects require further elucidation, and whether both strategies work in similar biological pathways is unknown. Thus, determining whether these effects are unique or shared across techniques is essential for optimizing their therapeutic applications. We investigated the long-term effects of tDCS by generating a novel transcriptomic dataset and comparing it to immediate tDCS effects and long-term TMS effects using publicly available data. Transcriptomics data were generated using nanopore sequencing on parietal cortices below the stimulation electrode of C57BL/6 mice that underwent repetitive anodal tDCS (200 µA) for 20 min over 5 consecutive days. Bioinformatics analyses were conducted on this dataset in conjunction with publicly available datasets on immediate tDCS and long-term TMS effects. Repetitive tDCS induces long-term alterations in protein translation, mitochondrial function, and cellular respiration, while TMS primarily affects calcium-mediated signaling, suggesting distinct neuromodulatory and molecular mechanisms. These findings demonstrate that tDCS and TMS elicit lasting but distinct molecular changes, highlighting technique-specific neuromodulatory effects relevant to their therapeutic applications.

BackgroundAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disease which has risen to become the main cause of childhood disability, placing a heavy burden on families and society. To date, the treatment of patients with ASD remains a complicated problem, for which neuromodulation techniques are a promising solution. This study analyzed the global research situation of neuromodulation techniques in the treatment of ASD from 1992 to 2022, aiming to explore the global research status and frontier trends in this field.MethodsThe Web of Science (WoS) was searched for literature related to neuromodulation techniques for ASD from 1992 to October 2022. A knowledge atlas to analyze collaboration among countries, institutions, authors, publishing journals, reference co-citation patterns, keyword co-occurrence, keyword clustering, and burst keywords was constructed using Rstudio software, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer.ResultsIn total, 392 publications related to the treatment of ASD using neuromodulation techniques were included. Despite some fluctuations, the number of publications in this field has shown a growing trend in recent years. The United States and Deakin University are the leading country and institution in this field, respectively. The greatest contributing authors are Peter G Enticott, Manuel F Casanova, and Paul B Fitzgerald et al. The most prolific and cited journal is Brain Stimulation and the most commonly co-cited journal is The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. The most frequently cited article was that of Simone Rossi (Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transverse magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research, 2009). “Obsessive–compulsive disorder,” “transcranial direct current stimulation,” “working memory,” “double blind” and “adolescent” were identified as hotspots and frontier trends of neuromodulation techniques in the treatment of ASD.ConclusionThe application of neuromodulation techniques for ASD has attracted the attention of researchers worldwide. Restoring the social ability and improving the comorbid symptoms in autistic children and adults have always been the focus of research. Neuromodulation techniques have demonstrated significant advantages and effects on these issues. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are new therapeutic methods introduced in recent years, and are also directions for further exploration.

Depression is a prevalent mental disorder that can lead to negative emotional states and physical reactions, including pain, insomnia, cognitive disorder and even suicidal tendencies, which largely effect one’s daily life. With the increasing pressures of modern life, the incidence of depression has risen, highlighting the importance of effective treatment. While antidepressants are commonly used, they often come with side effects and may lose effectiveness over time, especially in cases of Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). In order to find a more efficient and safer way to cure depression, neuromodulation techniques has been involved in the treatment. Neuromodulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have emerged as promising alternatives for depression treatment. These techniques modulate brain activity by applying electric currents or magnetic fields to specific areas of the brain. This study aims to compare tDCS and TMS in the treatment of depression by reviewing their advantages and disadvantages. Results indicate that both tDCS and TMS show promise in treating depression, with tDCS demonstrating moderate effectiveness for acute depression and TMS proving effective, especially for TRD. While both techniques have shown improvements in depressive symptoms, they differ in terms of mechanism, efficacy, safety, and convenience.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation are two techniques of non-invasive brain stimulation which principal mechanism of action is the cortical excitability modulation. The objective of this study is to perform an updated descriptive review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) analyzing the similarities and differences of their therapeutic applications in the rehabilitation of some of the most relevant neurological deficits consecutive to the stroke. Both TMS and tDCS favor the neurological recovery in the chronic phase of stroke. Until the moment, no differences have been published between both procedures in these cases after analyzing the published in relation to its effectiveness over motor dysfunction, aphasia or dysphagia. Clinical studies with greater number of participants and protocols standardized could outline this assessment in future studies.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and other forms of neuromodulation for substance use disorders: Review of modalities and implications for treatment

Non-invasive brain stimulation targets and approaches to modulate gambling-related decisions: A systematic review

Do tDCS and TMS influence tinnitus transiently via a direct cortical and indirect somatosensory modulating effect? A combined TMS-tDCS and TENS study

Effects of transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation on reciprocal inhibition in the human arm

To elucidate the involvement of motor pathways in konzo, 21 konzo subjects (mean age 22 years) underwent transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in 1998. Fourteen konzo subjects (mean age 21 years) underwent transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in 2000. Three subjects underwent both TES and TMS. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded in the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) muscle with TES, and in the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles with TMS. APB-MEPs were normal in 2 of 21 subjects and absent in 9; central conduction time (CCT) was prolonged in 10. Resting ADM-MEPs were absent in 9 of 14 subjects with clinically preserved upper limbs. Among these nine, seven subjects responded after facilitation. Most subjects (13 of 14) failed to show TA-MEPs. Of the subjects who underwent both types of stimulation, one had normal TES-MEP but abnormal ADM-MEP with TMS. These findings suggest involvement of both corticomotoneurons and motor descending pathways in konzo.