Background: Behavioral alterations, like mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia, and modulation of biomarkers in the peripheral and central nervous systems (CNS) are markers of chronic pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with exercise is a promising therapy for pain due to its neuromodulatory capacity. Objective: To assess the individual effects of tDCS, exercise, and the two combined on the nociceptive response and BDNF, IL-1b, and IL-4 levels in the CNS structures of rats in a chronic pain model. Methods: For 8 consecutive days after the establishment of chronic neuropathic pain by inducing a constriction injury to the sciatic nerve (CCI), the rats received tDCS, exercise, or both treatments combined (20 min/day). The hyperalgesic response was assessed by von Frey and hot plate tests at baseline, 7, and 14 days after CCI surgery and immediately, 24 h, and 7 days after the end of treatment. The BDNF, IL-1b, and IL-4 levels were assessed in the cerebral cortex, brainstem, and spinal cord by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at 48 h and 7 days after the end of treatment. Results: The CCI model triggered marked mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia. However, bimodal tDCS, aerobic exercise, and the two combined relieved nociceptive behavior for up to 7 days following treatment completion. Conclusions: Bimodal tDCS, aerobic exercise, or both treatments combined promoted analgesic effects for neuropathic pain. Such effects were reflected by cytokine modulation throughout the spinal cordbrainstem-cerebral cortex axis.

Epilepsy is a chronic brain syndrome characterized by recurrent seizures resulting from excessive neuronal discharges. Despite the development of various new antiepileptic drugs, many patients are refractory to treatment and report side effects. Non-invasive methods of brain stimulation, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have been tested as alternative approaches to directly modulate the excitability of epileptogenic neural circuits. Although some pilot and initial clinical studies have shown positive results, there is still uncertainty regarding the next steps of investigation in this field. Therefore, we reviewed preclinical and clinical studies using the following framework: (1) preclinical studies that have been successfully translated to clinical studies, (2) preclinical studies that have failed to be translated to clinical studies, and (3) clinical findings that were not previously tested in preclinical studies. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SciELO (2002–2017) using the keywords “tDCS,” “epilepsy,” “clinical trials,” and “animal models.” Our initial search resulted in 64 articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we screened 17 full-text articles to extract findings about the efficacy of tDCS, with respect to the therapeutic framework used and the resulting reduction in seizures and epileptiform patterns. We found that few preclinical findings have been translated into clinical research (number of sessions and effects on seizure frequency) and that most findings have not been tested clinically (effects of tDCS on status epilepticus and absence epilepsy, neuroprotective effects in the hippocampus, and combined use with specific medications). Finally, considering that clinical studies on tDCS have been conducted for several epileptic syndromes, most were not previously tested in preclinical studies (Rasmussen's encephalitis, drug resistant epilepsy, and hippocampal sclerosis-induced epilepsy). Overall, most studies report positive findings. However, it is important to underscore that a successful preclinical study may not indicate success in a clinical study, considering the differences highlighted herein. Although most studies report significant findings, there are still important insights from preclinical work that must be tested clinically. Understanding these factors may improve the evidence for the potential use of this technique as a clinical tool in the treatment of epilepsy.

No abstract

No abstract