Literature DB >> 28709880

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.

A Antal1, I Alekseichuk2, M Bikson3, J Brockmöller4, A R Brunoni5, R Chen6, L G Cohen7, G Dowthwaite8, J Ellrich9, A Flöel10, F Fregni11, M S George12, R Hamilton13, J Haueisen14, C S Herrmann15, F C Hummel16, J P Lefaucheur17, D Liebetanz2, C K Loo18, C D McCaig19, C Miniussi20, P C Miranda21, V Moliadze22, M A Nitsche23, R Nowak24, F Padberg25, A Pascual-Leone26, W Poppendieck27, A Priori28, S Rossi29, P M Rossini30, J Rothwell31, M A Rueger32, G Ruffini24, K Schellhorn33, H R Siebner34, Y Ugawa35, A Wexler36, U Ziemann37, M Hallett38, W Paulus2.   

Abstract

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.
Copyright © 2017 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse events; Safety; TES; tACS; tDCS

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28709880      PMCID: PMC5985830          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  388 in total

1.  Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model.

Authors:  Rosalind J Sadleir; Tracy D Vannorsdall; David J Schretlen; Barry Gordon
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Guidelines for precise and accurate computational models of tDCS.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2011-07-03       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Probing for hemispheric specialization for motor skill learning: a transcranial direct current stimulation study.

Authors:  Heidi M Schambra; Mitsunari Abe; David A Luckenbaugh; Janine Reis; John W Krakauer; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS.

Authors:  Preet Minhas; Varun Bansal; Jinal Patel; Johnson S Ho; Julian Diaz; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.390

5.  Pilot study of feasibility of the effect of treatment with tDCS in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression treated with escitalopram.

Authors:  D Bennabi; M Nicolier; J Monnin; G Tio; L Pazart; P Vandel; E Haffen
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 3.708

6.  High-Definition and Non-invasive Brain Modulation of Pain and Motor Dysfunction in Chronic TMD.

Authors:  Adam Donnell; Thiago D Nascimento; Mara Lawrence; Vikas Gupta; Tina Zieba; Dennis Q Truong; Marom Bikson; Abhi Datta; Emily Bellile; Alexandre F DaSilva
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 8.955

7.  Homeostatic metaplasticity of the motor cortex is altered during headache-free intervals in migraine with aura.

Authors:  Andrea Antal; Nicolas Lang; Klara Boros; Michael Nitsche; Hartwig R Siebner; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 8.  Microglia in the TBI brain: The good, the bad, and the dysregulated.

Authors:  David J Loane; Alok Kumar
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 5.330

9.  Polarity-sensitive modulation of cortical neurotransmitters by transcranial stimulation.

Authors:  Charlotte J Stagg; Jonathan G Best; Mary C Stephenson; Jacinta O'Shea; Marzena Wylezinska; Z Tamas Kincses; Peter G Morris; Paul M Matthews; Heidi Johansen-Berg
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 10.  Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Michael T Heneka; Monica J Carson; Joseph El Khoury; Gary E Landreth; Frederic Brosseron; Douglas L Feinstein; Andreas H Jacobs; Tony Wyss-Coray; Javier Vitorica; Richard M Ransohoff; Karl Herrup; Sally A Frautschy; Bente Finsen; Guy C Brown; Alexei Verkhratsky; Koji Yamanaka; Jari Koistinaho; Eicke Latz; Annett Halle; Gabor C Petzold; Terrence Town; Dave Morgan; Mari L Shinohara; V Hugh Perry; Clive Holmes; Nicolas G Bazan; David J Brooks; Stéphane Hunot; Bertrand Joseph; Nikolaus Deigendesch; Olga Garaschuk; Erik Boddeke; Charles A Dinarello; John C Breitner; Greg M Cole; Douglas T Golenbock; Markus P Kummer
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 44.182

View more
  194 in total

1.  Transcranial direct current stimulation of default mode network parietal nodes decreases negative mind-wandering about the past.

Authors:  Tina Chou; Jill M Hooley; Joan A Camprodon
Journal:  Cognit Ther Res       Date:  2019-09-28

2.  Adaptive current tDCS up to 4 mA.

Authors:  Niranjan Khadka; Helen Borges; Bhaskar Paneri; Trynia Kaufman; Electra Nassis; Adantchede L Zannou; Yungjae Shin; Hyeongseob Choi; Seonghoon Kim; Kiwon Lee; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates response inhibition through dynamic modulation of the fronto-basal ganglia network.

Authors:  Marco Sandrini; Benjamin Xu; Rita Volochayev; Oluwole Awosika; Wen-Tung Wang; John A Butman; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 4.  Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.

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

5.  The Emerging Role of Biomarkers in Adaptive Modulation of Clinical Brain Stimulation.

Authors:  Kimberly B Hoang; Dennis A Turner
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Comparative modeling of transcranial magnetic and electric stimulation in mouse, monkey, and human.

Authors:  Ivan Alekseichuk; Kathleen Mantell; Sina Shirinpour; Alexander Opitz
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Consensus Paper: Cerebellum and Social Cognition.

Authors:  Frank Van Overwalle; Mario Manto; Zaira Cattaneo; Silvia Clausi; Chiara Ferrari; John D E Gabrieli; Xavier Guell; Elien Heleven; Michela Lupo; Qianying Ma; Marco Michelutti; Giusy Olivito; Min Pu; Laura C Rice; Jeremy D Schmahmann; Libera Siciliano; Arseny A Sokolov; Catherine J Stoodley; Kim van Dun; Larry Vandervert; Maria Leggio
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 3.847

8.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation May Improve Cognitive-Motor Function in Functionally Limited Older Adults.

Authors:  Brad Manor; Junhong Zhou; Rachel Harrison; On-Yee Lo; Thomas G Travison; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lewis Lipsitz
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 3.919

9.  Evidence against benefits from cognitive training and transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy older adults.

Authors:  Kristina S Horne; Hannah L Filmer; Zoie E Nott; Ziarih Hawi; Kealan Pugsley; Jason B Mattingley; Paul E Dux
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-10-26

Review 10.  Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes.

Authors:  Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Paola Marangolo; Benjamin M Hampstead; Sven Bestmann; Elisabeth Galletta; Helena Knotkova; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 8.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.