A novel tDCS sham approach based on model-driven controlled shunting

BackgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique able to transiently modulate brain activity, is surging as one of the most promising therapeutic solutions in many neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, profound limitations exist in current placebo (sham) protocols that limit single- and double-blinding, especially in non-naïve subjects.ObjectiveTo ensure better blinding and strengthen reliability of tDCS studies and trials, we tested a new optimization algorithm aimed at creating an “active” sham tDCS condition (ActiSham hereafter) capable of inducing the same scalp sensations perceived during real stimulation while preventing currents from reaching the cortex and cause changes in brain excitability.MethodsA novel model-based multielectrode technique — optimizing the location and currents of a set of small electrodes placed on the scalp — was used to control the relative amount of current delivered transcranially in real and placebo multichannel tDCS conditions. The presence, intensity and localization of scalp sensations during tDCS was evaluated by means of a specifically designed questionnaire administered to the participants. We compared blinding ratings by directly addressing subjects’ ability to discriminate across conditions for both traditional (Bifocal-tDCS and Sham, using sponge electrodes) and our novel multifocal approach (both real Multifocal-tDCS and ActiSham). Changes in corticospinal excitability were monitored based on Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) recorded via concurrent Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and electromyography (EMG).ResultsParticipants perceived Multifocal-tDCS and ActiSham similarly in terms of both localization and intensity of scalp sensations, whereas traditional Bifocal stimulation was rated as more painful and annoying compared to its Sham counterpart. Additionally, differences in scalp localization were reported for active/sham Bifocal-tDCS, with Sham tDCS inducing more widespread itching and burning sensations. As for MEPs amplitude, a main effect of stimulation was found when comparing Bifocal-Sham and ActiSham (F_(1,13) = 6.67, p = .023), with higher MEPs amplitudes after the application of Bifocal-Sham.ConclusionsCompared to traditional Bifocal-tDCS, ActiSham offers better participants’ blinding by inducing very similar scalp sensations to those of real Multifocal tDCS both in terms of intensity and localization, while not affecting corticospinal excitability.     

How structural and functional MRI can inform dual-site tACS parameters: A case study in a clinical population and its pragmatic implications

BackgroundAbnormalities in frontoparietal network (FPN) were observed in many neuropsychiatric diseases including substance use disorders. A growing number of studies are using dual-site-tACS with frontoparietal synchronization to engage this network. However, a computational pathway to inform and optimize parameter space for frontoparietal synchronization is still lacking. In this case study, in a group of participants with methamphetamine use disorders, we proposed a computational pathway to extract optimal electrode montage while accounting for stimulation intensity using structural and functional MRI.MethodsSixty methamphetamine users completed an fMRI drug cue-reactivity task. Four main steps were taken to define electrode montage and adjust stimulation intensity using 4x1 high-definition (HD) electrodes for a dual-site-tACS; (1) Frontal seed was defined based on the maximum electric fields (EF) predicted by simulation of HD montage over DLPFC (F3/F4 in EEG 10–10), (2) frontal seed-to-whole brain context-dependent correlation was calculated to determine connected regions to frontal seeds, (3) center of connected cluster in parietal cortex was selected as a location for placing the second set of HD electrodes to shape the informed montage, (4) individualized head models were used to determine optimal stimulation intensity considering underlying brain structure. The informed montage was compared to montages with large electrodes and classic frontoparietal HD montages (F3-P3/F4-P4) in terms of tACS-induced EF and ROI-to-ROI task-based/resting-state connectivity.ResultsCompared to the large electrodes, HD frontoparietal montages allow for a finer control of the spatial peak fields in the main nodes of the FPN at the cost of lower maximum EF (large-pad/HD: max EF[V/m] = 0.37/0.11, number of cortical sub-regions that EF exceeds 50% of the max = 77/13). For defining stimulation targets based on EF patterns, using group-level head models compared to a single standard head model results in comparable but significantly different seed locations (6.43 mm Euclidean distance between the locations of the frontal maximum EF in standard-space). As expected, significant task-based/resting-state connections were only found between frontal-parietal locations in the informed montage. Cue-induced craving score was correlated with frontoparietal connectivity only in the informed montage (r = ?0.24). Stimulation intensity in the informed montage, and not in the classic HD montage, needs 40% reduction in the parietal site to reduce the disparity in EF between stimulation sites.ConclusionThis study provides some empirical insights to montage and dose selection in dual-site-tACS using individual brain structures and functions and proposes a computational pathway to use head models and functional MRI to define (1) optimum electrode montage for targeting FPN in a context of interest (drug-cue-reactivity) and (2) proper transcranial stimulation intensity.     

不同波形低频率电刺激对小鼠海马电点燃癫痫的作用比较

目的观察比较不同脉冲波形的低频率电刺激对海马电点燃癫痫模型小鼠的作用差异。方法采用电点燃刺激法建立小鼠癫痫模型, 观察正弦波、单相方波、双相方波低频率电刺激对模型小鼠癫痫行为发作及后放电持续时间的影响, 并比较不同时间点给予正弦波低频率电刺激的抗癫痫作用。结果与对照组比较, 正弦波低频率电刺激30 s能降低小鼠海马电点燃癫痫发作等级(2.85 ± 0.27 vs 4.75 ±0.12, P < 0.05)、减少大发作概率(53.6% vs 96.5%, P < 0.01) 和缩短后放电持续时间[(16.22 ± 1.69) s vs (30.29 ± 1.12) s, P < 0.01], 而单相方波和双相方波低频率电刺激30 s没有明显的抗癫痫作用。常用的单相方波低频率电刺激15 min能降低小鼠海马电点燃发作等级(3.58 ± 0.16, P < 0.05)、减少大发作概率(66.7%, P < 0.01);但对海马后放电持续时间及大发作持续时间无影响(均 P>0.05)。此外, 电点燃刺激前预先给予或结束后3 s内给予正弦波低频率电刺激具有明显的抗癫痫作用( P < 0.05或 P < 0.01), 而电点燃刺激结束10 s给予正弦波低频率电刺激则无上述抗癫痫作用。 结论低频率电刺激抗癫痫作用受波形参数的影响, 其中正弦波低频率电刺激能有效抑制小鼠海马电点燃癫痫的发作。     

Utility of Deep Brain Stimulation Telemedicine for Patients With Movement Disorders During the COVID-19 Outbreak in China

ObjectiveTo explore the utility of deep brain stimulation (DBS) telemedicine in the management of patients with movement disorders from January 2019 to March 2020, covering the main period of the COVID-19 outbreak in China.Materials and MethodsWe obtained data from 40 hospitals around China that employed DBS tele-programming for their outpatients with Parkinson’s disease or dystonia from January 2019 to March 2020. Data were obtained on the number and nature of patients’ DBS health care service requests, reasons for their requests, the number of DBS telemedicine sessions subsequently completed, safety issues, and the patients’ satisfaction with the DBS tele-programing parameter adjustments made.ResultsThere were 909 DBS tele-programming health service requests (from 196 patients) completed during the study period. The results showed: 1) the number of DBS telemedicine sessions requested and the number of patients examined increased during the COVID-19 outbreak in February and March 2020 when compared with the monthly numbers in 2019; 2) the most common reason for the patients’ health service requests was poor symptom control; 3) the most common DBS tele-programming adjustment made was voltage change; 4) overall, most (89%) DBS tele-programming adjustment sessions were experienced by the patients as satisfactory; and 5) significant adverse events and unexpected treatment interruptions caused by connection failure or other hardware- or software-related problems did not occur.ConclusionsDBS telemedicine could have a unique role to play in maintaining the delivery of DBS treatment and medical care to outpatients with movement disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Efficacy of percutaneous and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in women with idiopathic overactive bladder: A prospective randomised controlled trial

BackgroundDifferent studies have reported the efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) in treating idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). However, no study has compared the effectiveness of PTNS and TTNS added to bladder training (BT) in idiopathic OAB.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of PTNS and TTNS added to BT in women with idiopathic OAB.MethodsWe randomised 60 women with idiopathic OAB into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 19) received BT, Group 2 (n = 19) received PTNS in addition to BT, and Group 3 (n = 20) received TTNS in addition to BT. PTNS and TTNS were performed 2 days a week, for 30 min a day, for a total of 12 sessions for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated by incontinence severity (pad test), a 3-day voiding diary (frequency of voiding, incontinence episodes, nocturia and number of pads used), symptom severity, quality of life, treatment success (positive response rate), treatment satisfaction (Likert scale), discomfort level and preparation time for stimulation (sec).ResultsAt the end of treatment; severity of incontinence, frequency of voiding, incontinence episodes, nocturia, number of pads used, symptom severity and quality of life were significantly improved in Groups 2 and 3 versus Group 1 (P < 0.0167). Treatment success and treatment satisfaction were higher in Groups 2 and 3 than Group 1 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0167, respectively). Level of discomfort was lower, treatment satisfaction was higher and preparation time for stimulation was shorter in Group 3 than Group 2 (P < 0.05).ConclusionBoth the PTNS plus BT and TTNS plus BT were more effective than BT alone in women with idiopathic OAB. These 2 tibial nerve stimulation methods had similar clinical efficacy but with slight differences: TTNS had shorter preparation time, less discomfort level and higher patient satisfaction than PTNS.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.