Fabiana Guarienti

Transcranial direct current stimulation in psychiatric disorders

The interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques is increasing in recent years. Among these techniques, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been the subject of great interest among researchers because of its easiness to use, low cost, benign profile of side effects and encouraging results of research in the field. This interest has generated several studies and randomized clinical trials, particularly in psychiatry. In this review, we provide a summary of the development of the technique and its mechanism of action as well as a review of the methodological aspects of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry, including studies in affective disorders, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, child psychiatry and substance use disorder. Finally, we provide an overview of tDCS use in cognitive enhancement as well as a discussion regarding its clinical use and regulatory and ethical issues. Although many promising results regarding tDCS efficacy were described, the total number of studies is still low, highlighting the need of further studies aiming to replicate these findings in larger samples as to provide a definite picture regarding tDCS efficacy in psychiatry.

Reducing transcranial direct current stimulation-induced erythema with skin pretreatment: considerations for sham-controlled clinical trials.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)‐induced erythema (skin reddening) has been described as an adverse effect that can harm blinding integrity in sham‐controlled designs. To tackle this issue, we investigated whether the use of topical pretreatments could decrease erythema and other adverse effects associated with tDCS.

A Systematic Review on the Acceptability and Tolerability of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment in Neuropsychiatry Trials.

BACKGROUND Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation investigated as a treatment for several neuropsychiatric disorders. Notwithstanding tDCS-induced adverse events (AEs) are considered to be low and transient, systematic review analyses on safety and tolerability of tDCS derive mostly from single-session studies. OBJECTIVE To investigate the tolerability (rate of AEs) and acceptability (rate of dropouts) of tDCS. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS randomized, sham-controlled trials in healthy or neuropsychiatric adult samples from the first date available to March 9, 2016. We only included parallel studies performing at least 5 tDCS sessions. An adapted version of CONSORT guidelines for reporting harms outcomes was used to evaluate AE reporting. RESULTS Sixty-four studies (2262 participants) were included. They had a low risk of publication bias and methodological bias for the items assessed. Dropout rates in active and sham tDCS groups were, respectively, 6% and 7.2% (OR = 0.82 [0.59-1.14]). However, almost half of studies reported no dropouts and only 23.4% reported its reasons; when reported, the most frequent reasons were AEs and protocol violation. A tolerability meta-analysis was not performed, as most studies did not report AEs. The quality of AEs reporting was also limited, particularly in smaller studies and stroke studies. CONCLUSIONS Although overall dropout rate was low and similar in active and sham groups, studies did not adequately describe AEs. An updated questionnaire and guidelines for assessment of AEs in tDCS trials are proposed in order to standardize the reporting of AE in the field.