Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has broadly disrupted biomedical treatment and research including non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). Moreover, the rapid onset of societal disruption and evolving regulatory restrictions may not have allowed for systematic planning of how clinical and research work may continue throughout the pandemic or be restarted as restrictions are abated. The urgency to provide and develop NIBS as an intervention for diverse neurological and mental health indications, and as a catalyst of fundamental brain research, is not dampened by the parallel efforts to address the most life-threatening aspects of COVID-19; rather in many cases the need for NIBS is heightened including the potential to mitigate mental health consequences related to COVID-19. Objective: To facilitate the re-establishment of access to NIBS clinical services and research operations during the current COVID-19 pandemic and possible future outbreaks, we develop and discuss a framework for balancing the importance of NIBS operations with safety considerations, while addressing the needs of all stakeholders. We focus on Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) -including transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS). Methods: The present consensus paper provides guidelines and good practices for managing and reopening NIBS clinics and laboratories through the immediate and ongoing stages of COVID-19. The document reflects the analysis of experts with domain-relevant expertise spanning NIBS technology, clinical services, and basic and clinical research e with an international perspective. We outline regulatory aspects, human resources, NIBS optimization, as well as accommodations for specific demographics.Results: A model based on three phases (early COVID-19 impact, current practices, and future preparation) with an 11-step checklist (spanning removing or streamlining in-person protocols, incorporating telemedicine, and addressing COVID-19-associated adverse events) is proposed. Recommendations on implementing social distancing and sterilization of NIBS related equipment, specific considerations of COVID-19 positive populations including mental health comorbidities, as well as considerations regarding regulatory and human resource in the era of COVID-19 are outlined. We discuss COVID-19 considerations specifically for clinical (sub-)populations including pediatric, stroke, addiction, and the elderly. Numerous case-examples across the world are described. Conclusion:There is an evident, and in cases urgent, need to maintain NIBS operations through the COVID-19 pandemic, including anticipating future pandemic waves and addressing effects of COVID-19 on brain and mind. The proposed robust and structured strategy aims to address the current and anticipated future challenges while maintaining scientific rigor and managing risk.

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been proposed as a new therapeutic way to enhance the cognition of patients with dementia. However, serious methodological limitations appear to affect the estimates of their efficacy. We reviewed the stimulation parameters and methods of studies that used TMS or tDCS to alleviate the cognitive symptoms of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Moreover, we evaluated the risk of bias in these studies. Our aim was to highlight the current vulnerabilities of the field and to formulate recommendations on how to manage these issues when designing studies.Methods: Electronic databases and citation searching were used to identify studies administering TMS or tDCS on patients with AD or MCI to enhance cognitive function. Data were extracted by one review author into summary tables with the supervision of the authors. The risk of bias analysis of randomized-controlled trials was conducted by two independent assessors with version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.Results: Overall, 36 trials were identified of which 23 randomized-controlled trials underwent a risk of bias assessment. More than 75% of randomized-controlled trials involved some levels of bias in at least one domain. Stimulation parameters were highly variable with some ranges of effectiveness emerging. Studies with low risk of bias indicated TMS to be potentially effective for patients with AD or MCI while questioned the efficacy of tDCS. Conclusions:The presence and extent of methodical issues affecting TMS and tDCS research involving patients with AD and MCI were examined for the first time. The risk of bias frequently affected the domains of the randomization process and selection of the reported data while missing outcome was rare. Unclear reporting was present involving Holczer et al.NIBS in Dementia: Methodological Issues randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. Methodological awareness can potentially reduce the high variability of the estimates regarding the effectiveness of TMS and tDCS. Studies with low risk of bias delineate a range within TMS parameters seem to be effective but question the efficacy of tDCS.

Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may be more effective for modulating cortical excitability compared to standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, the impact of intermittent (iTBS) and continuous TBS (cTBS) on working memory (WM) is poorly studied. The aim of our study was to compare the effects of iTBS and cTBS on WM over the left and right DLPFC. iTBS, cTBS or sham stimulation was administered over the right and left hemisphere of fifty-one healthy human subjects. WM was assessed before and after TBS using the 1-back, 2-back, and 3-back tasks. We found classical practice effects in the iTBS and the sham group: WM performance improved following stimulation as measured by the discriminability index. However, this effect could not be observed in the cTBS group. We did not find any hemisphere-dependent effects, suggesting that the practice effect is not lateralized, and TBS affects WM performance in a comparable manner if administered either over the left or the right hemisphere. We propose that our findings represent a useful addition to the literature of TBS-induced effects on WM. Moreover, these results indicate the possibility of clarifying processes underlying WM performance changes by using non-invasive brain stimulation.

No abstract

No abstract