Margaret Kasschau1, Jesse Reisner2, Kathleen Sherman1, Marom Bikson3, Abhishek Datta4, Leigh E Charvet1. 1. Department of Neurology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Glendale, AZ, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of CUNY, New York, NY, USA. 4. Soterix Medical Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has potential clinical application for symptomatic management in multiple sclerosis (MS). Repeated sessions are necessary in order to adequately evaluate a therapeutic effect. However, it is not feasible for many individuals with MS to visit clinic for treatment on a daily basis, and clinic delivery is also associated with substantial cost. We developed a research protocol to remotely supervise self- or proxy-administration for home delivery of tDCS using specially designed equipment and a telemedicine platform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We targeted ten treatment sessions across two weeks. Twenty participants (n = 20) diagnosed with MS (any subtype), ages 30 to 69 years with a range of disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale or EDSS scores of 1.0 to 8.0) were enrolled to test the feasibility of the remotely supervised protocol. RESULTS: Protocol adherence exceeded what has been observed in studies with clinic-based treatment delivery, with all but one participant (95%) completing at least eight of the ten sessions. Across a total of 192 supervised treatment sessions, no session required discontinuation and no adverse events were reported. The most common side effects were itching/tingling at the electrode site. CONCLUSIONS: This remotely supervised tDCS protocol provides a method for safe and reliable delivery of tDCS for clinical studies in MS and expands patient access to tDCS.
OBJECTIVES: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has potential clinical application for symptomatic management in multiple sclerosis (MS). Repeated sessions are necessary in order to adequately evaluate a therapeutic effect. However, it is not feasible for many individuals with MS to visit clinic for treatment on a daily basis, and clinic delivery is also associated with substantial cost. We developed a research protocol to remotely supervise self- or proxy-administration for home delivery of tDCS using specially designed equipment and a telemedicine platform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We targeted ten treatment sessions across two weeks. Twenty participants (n = 20) diagnosed with MS (any subtype), ages 30 to 69 years with a range of disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale or EDSS scores of 1.0 to 8.0) were enrolled to test the feasibility of the remotely supervised protocol. RESULTS: Protocol adherence exceeded what has been observed in studies with clinic-based treatment delivery, with all but one participant (95%) completing at least eight of the ten sessions. Across a total of 192 supervised treatment sessions, no session required discontinuation and no adverse events were reported. The most common side effects were itching/tingling at the electrode site. CONCLUSIONS: This remotely supervised tDCS protocol provides a method for safe and reliable delivery of tDCS for clinical studies in MS and expands patient access to tDCS.
Authors: Alexandra M Gaynor; Denise Pergolizzi; Yesne Alici; Elizabeth Ryan; Katrazyna McNeal; Tim A Ahles; James C Root Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Martina Chirra; Luca Marsili; Linsdey Wattley; Leonard L Sokol; Elizabeth Keeling; Simona Maule; Gabriele Sobrero; Carlo Alberto Artusi; Alberto Romagnolo; Maurizio Zibetti; Leonardo Lopiano; Alberto J Espay; Ahmed Z Obeidat; Aristide Merola Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Marom Bikson; Colleen A Hanlon; Adam J Woods; Bernadette T Gillick; Leigh Charvet; Claus Lamm; Graziella Madeo; Adrienn Holczer; Jorge Almeida; Andrea Antal; Mohammad Reza Ay; Chris Baeken; Daniel M Blumberger; Salvatore Campanella; Joan A Camprodon; Lasse Christiansen; Colleen Loo; Jennifer T Crinion; Paul Fitzgerald; Luigi Gallimberti; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Iman Ghodratitoostani; Roland H Grabner; Gesa Hartwigsen; Akimasa Hirata; Adam Kirton; Helena Knotkova; Evgeny Krupitsky; Paola Marangolo; Ester M Nakamura-Palacios; Weronika Potok; Samir K Praharaj; Christian C Ruff; Gottfried Schlaug; Hartwig R Siebner; Charlotte J Stagg; Axel Thielscher; Nicole Wenderoth; Ti-Fei Yuan; Xiaochu Zhang; Hamed Ekhtiari Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Aurore Thibaut; Vivian L Shie; Colleen M Ryan; Ross Zafonte; Emily A Ohrtman; Jeffrey C Schneider; Felipe Fregni Journal: Burns Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Sergey N Makarov; Laleh Golestanirad; William A Wartman; Bach Thanh Nguyen; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki P Ahveninen; Kyoko Fujimoto; Konstantin Weise; Aapo R Nummenmaa Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Georgia H O'Leary; Dorothea D Jenkins; Patricia Coker-Bolt; Mark S George; Steve Kautz; Marom Bikson; Bernadette T Gillick; Bashar W Badran Journal: Prog Brain Res Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 2.624