Bhaskar Paneri1, Devin Adair1, Chris Thomas1, Niranjan Khadka1, Vaishali Patel1, William J Tyler2, Lucas Parra1, Marom Bikson3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA. 2. School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA. Electronic address: bikson@ccny.cuny.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety and tolerability of limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in clinical populations support a non-significant risk designation. The tolerability of long-term use in a healthy population had remained untested. OBJECTIVE: We tested the tolerability and compliance of two tES waveforms, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and modulated high frequency transcranial pulsed current stimulation (MHF-tPCS) compared to sham-tDCS, applied to healthy subjects for three to five days (17-20 minutes per day) per week for up to six weeks in a communal setting. MHF-tPCS consisted of asymmetric high-frequency pulses (7-11 kHz) having a peak amplitude of 10-20 mA peak, adjusted by subject, resulting in an average current of 5-7 mA. METHOD: A total of 100 treatment blind healthy subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: tDCS (n = 33), MHF-tPCS (n = 30), or sham-tDCS (n = 37). In order to test the role of waveform, electrode type and montage were fixed across tES and sham-tDCS arms: high-capacity self-adhering electrodes on the right lateral forehead and back of the neck. We conducted 1905 sessions (636 sham-tDCS, 623 tDCS, and 646 MHF-tPCS sessions) on study volunteers over a period of six weeks. RESULTS: Common adverse events were primarily restricted to influences upon the skin and included skin tingling, itching, and mild burning sensations. The incidence of these events in the active tES treatment arms (MHF-tPCS, tDCS) was equivalent or significantly lower than their incidence in the sham-tDCS treatment arm. Other adverse events had a rarity (<5% incidence) that could not be significantly distinguished across the treatment groups. Some subjects were withdrawn from the study due to atypical headache (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 2, and MHF-tPCS n = 3), atypical discomfort (sham-tDCSn = 0, tDCS n = 1, and MHF-tPCS n = 1), or atypical skin irritation (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 8, and MHF-tPCS n = 1). The rate of compliance, elected sessions completed, for the MHF-tPCS group was significantly greater than the sham-tDCS group's compliance (p = 0.007). There were no serious adverse events in any treatment condition. CONCLUSION: We conclude that repeated application of limited output tES across extended periods, limited to the hardware, electrodes, and protocols tested here, is well tolerated in healthy subjects, as previously observed in clinical populations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The safety and tolerability of limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in clinical populations support a non-significant risk designation. The tolerability of long-term use in a healthy population had remained untested. OBJECTIVE: We tested the tolerability and compliance of two tES waveforms, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and modulated high frequency transcranial pulsed current stimulation (MHF-tPCS) compared to sham-tDCS, applied to healthy subjects for three to five days (17-20 minutes per day) per week for up to six weeks in a communal setting. MHF-tPCS consisted of asymmetric high-frequency pulses (7-11 kHz) having a peak amplitude of 10-20 mA peak, adjusted by subject, resulting in an average current of 5-7 mA. METHOD: A total of 100 treatment blind healthy subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: tDCS (n = 33), MHF-tPCS (n = 30), or sham-tDCS (n = 37). In order to test the role of waveform, electrode type and montage were fixed across tES and sham-tDCS arms: high-capacity self-adhering electrodes on the right lateral forehead and back of the neck. We conducted 1905 sessions (636 sham-tDCS, 623 tDCS, and 646 MHF-tPCS sessions) on study volunteers over a period of six weeks. RESULTS: Common adverse events were primarily restricted to influences upon the skin and included skin tingling, itching, and mild burning sensations. The incidence of these events in the active tES treatment arms (MHF-tPCS, tDCS) was equivalent or significantly lower than their incidence in the sham-tDCS treatment arm. Other adverse events had a rarity (<5% incidence) that could not be significantly distinguished across the treatment groups. Some subjects were withdrawn from the study due to atypical headache (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 2, and MHF-tPCS n = 3), atypical discomfort (sham-tDCS n = 0, tDCS n = 1, and MHF-tPCS n = 1), or atypical skin irritation (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 8, and MHF-tPCS n = 1). The rate of compliance, elected sessions completed, for the MHF-tPCS group was significantly greater than the sham-tDCS group's compliance (p = 0.007). There were no serious adverse events in any treatment condition. CONCLUSION: We conclude that repeated application of limited output tES across extended periods, limited to the hardware, electrodes, and protocols tested here, is well tolerated in healthy subjects, as previously observed in clinical populations.
Authors: Siobhán Harty; Ian H Robertson; Carlo Miniussi; Owen C Sheehy; Ciara A Devine; Sarahjane McCreery; Redmond G O'Connell Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 8.955
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: Carlos A Sánchez-León; Isabel Cordones; Claudia Ammann; José M Ausín; María A Gómez-Climent; Alejandro Carretero-Guillén; Guillermo Sánchez-Garrido Campos; Agnès Gruart; José M Delgado-García; Guy Cheron; Javier F Medina; Javier Márquez-Ruiz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.379