Skip to main content
Download PDF

Repeated prefrontal tDCS for improving mental health and cognitive deficits in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

Journal of Translational Medicine volume 22, Article number: 843 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease associated with physical disability, psychological impairment, and cognitive dysfunctions. Consequently, the disease burden is substantial, and treatment choices are limited. In this randomized, double-blind study, we conducted repeated prefrontal electrical stimulation in 40 patients with MS to evaluate mental health variables (quality of life, sleep difficulties, psychological distress) and cognitive dysfunctions (psychomotor speed, working memory, attention/vigilance), marking it as the third largest sample size tDCS research conducted in MS to date.

Methods

The patients were randomly assigned (block randomization method) to two groups of sham (n = 20), or 1.5-mA (n = 20) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (F3) and right frontopolar cortex (Fp2) with anodal and cathodal stimulation respectively (electrode size: 25 cm2). The treatment included 10 sessions of 20 min of stimulation delivered every other day. Outcome measures were MS quality of life, sleep quality, psychological distress, and performance on a neuropsychological test battery dedicated to cognitive dysfunctions in MS (psychomotor speed, working memory, and attention). All outcome measures were evaluated at the pre-intervention and post-intervention assessments. Both patients and technicians delivering the stimulation were unaware of the type of stimulation being used.

Results

Repeated prefrontal real tDCS significantly improved quality of life and reduced sleep difficulties and psychological distress compared to the sham group. It, furthermore, improved psychomotor speed, attention, and vigilance compared to the sham protocol. Improvement in mental health outcome variables and cognitive outperformance were interrelated and could predict each other.

Conclusions

Repeated prefrontal and frontopolar tDCS ameliorates secondary clinical symptoms related to mental health and results in beneficial cognitive effects in patients with MS. These results support applying prefrontal tDCS in larger trials for improving mental health and cognitive dysfunctions in MS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06401928.

Introduction

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is the most common autoimmune disorder of the central nervous system, afflicting more than 2.5 million people worldwide, especially young people [1, 2]. It is a progressive chronic disease, caused by an autoimmune attack, which results in the gradual loss of the myelin sheath around neuronal axons of the central nervous system. Depending on the affected neurons, different symptoms are expressed in the course of the disease; nonetheless, physical disability, cognitive impairment, and decreased quality of life are common in MS [3]. MS results in motor, sensory, cognitive, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, all of which can occur independently of one another [4]. The disease is associated with a high mental health burden due to primary symptoms of sensory and motor deficits. Some of the most common symptoms include fatigue, vision problems, numbness and tingling, muscle spasms, stiffness and weakness, mobility problems, and pain [2, 5].

In addition to primary symptoms, individuals with MS also experience mental health challenges, affecting quality of life, sleep, and emotional disturbances [6,7,8]. Cognitive deficits are also commonly observed symptoms in MS and include deficits in attention and vigilance, information processing, executive functioning, processing speed, and long-term memory [4] with a profound effect on activities of daily living [9]. Both primary and secondary symptoms can vary in severity and may come and go, depending on disease activity, progression, and the type of MS, which include relapsing-remitting, or chronic-progressive types [8, 10]. Individuals with MS need to work closely with healthcare professionals to manage their symptoms and improve their quality of life. Considering the burden of treatment [11], the complex pathophysiology and psychophysiology, and limited treatment options for secondary symptoms (e.g., physical therapy, psychotherapy, cognitive rehabilitation) [3], there is a need for novel and effective treatment for both primary and secondary symptoms in MS.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe and easy-to-use noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) intervention for studying and modifying human brain functions [12, 13] and immune-related neurotransmitters like dopamine [14, 15]. In mental health settings, tDCS has advantages over other NIBS methods, including affordability, fewer side effects, and suitability for home use and remote control. It involves applying a low-intensity direct current to the scalp, which induces alterations of the resting membrane potential of neurons. At the macroscale level, anodal stimulation depolarizes neurons at a subthreshold level, making them more likely to fire action potentials, while cathodal stimulation hyperpolarizes neurons, reducing their excitability [16, 17]. By modulating cortical excitability parameters (e.g., cortical inhibition and facilitation) and inducing neuroplasticity effects, it is possible to restore functional brain abnormalities and affect target behavior/cognition. Previous studies have shown functional brain abnormalities in MS that are also related to secondary symptoms in MS [18, 19]. These abnormalities can take many different forms, such as altered brain activity, neural network disturbances, and compromised cognitive functions. Key elements of functional brain impairments in MS include changes in pain processing pathways as well as alterations of brain regions involved in the regulation of mood and arousal, including the limbic system, hypothalamus, and motor regions [20,21,22]. Furthermore, there is growing evidence of grey matter changes in MS that are linked to disability and other clinical symptoms in these patients [23, 24].

Previous tDCS studies in MS have mostly focused on examining the efficacy of prefrontal and motor cortices stimulation on clinical symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain), motor symptoms, and cognitive deficits [25,26,27,28]. There is inconsistency in the studies results regarding the cognitive effects of NIBS, including tDCS, on MS patients. In addition to cognitive and motor symptoms, MS patients often experience other mental health issues that are less frequently addressed in tDCS and NIBS studies. While there have been some studies on the effects of tDCS on mental health-related variables, such as quality of life [29], sleep [30], and emotional difficulties [31], there is still a lack of research on the impact of tDCS on both mental health-related variables and cognitive performance in patients with MS. Accordingly, the purpose of this randomized, sham-controlled study with a parallel-group design is to address this research gap by examining [1] the effects of repeated prefrontal-frontopolar tDCS on mental health variables (i.e., quality of life, sleep difficulties, psychological distress) in MS patients [2], the impact of repeated prefrontal-frontopolar tDCS on their cognitive performance, and [3] the association between these two sets of secondary symptoms.

Methods

Participants

Eighty MS patients from the local MS community (Rasht, Iran) were screened for inclusion in the study. The inclusion criteria were: [1] diagnosis of MS according to the Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions of the McDonald criteria (Polman et al., 2011), certified by a professional neurologist [2], being 25–55 years old [3], being non-smoker [4], no previous history of neurological diseases, brain surgery, epilepsy, seizures, brain damage, head injury, or metal brain implants [5], absence of other psychiatric disorders except mood and anxiety disorders, and [6] no relapse of MS symptoms within the last two months before beginning the experiment. Of those who met the inclusion criteria (n = 60), forty patients were randomly assigned to the experimental (active tDCS) and control (sham tDCS) groups based on a sample size analysis (f = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.95, mixed-model ANOVA for 2 groups with 2 measurements) which resulted in a sample size of 40 patients. This sample size is larger than 94% of tDCS studies reported in recent metaanalyss and review studies [26, 32]. For the group assignment of the participants, block randomization method was applied. Three patients decided to withdraw from the study following the first session and thus the final analysis was conducted on 37 patients (mean age = 37.30, SD = 6.21, 27 females, 10 males) (see Table 1; Fig. 1 for demographics and study inclusion). This is a retrospectively registered clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06401928) approved by the Ethics Committee of the Mohaghegh Ardabili University (Ethics code: IR.MAU.REC.1401.94). Participants gave their written informed consent before participation.

Table 1 Demographic data
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The CONSORT Flow Diagram outlining the study’s inclusion procedures. Thirty-seven patients completed all post-intervention CANTAB subtests, while five did not attend the mental health assessment

Full size image

Measures

Mental health assessments

The primary outcome measures of the study included quality of life, sleep difficulties, and psychological distress that were measured with the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) [33], the Mini Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ) [34], and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) [35] respectively. The MSIS-29 is a measure of the physical and psychological impact of MS from the patients’ perspective consisting of 29 questions with the first 20 items focusing on the physical impact and the remaining 9 on the psychological impact. The Mini Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ) is typically used to screen sleep disturbances in clinical populations, and the DASS-21 is a 21-item self-report measure designed to assess the severity of general psychological distress and symptoms related to depression, anxiety, and stress in adults and older adolescents (+ 17 years). Details about these measures and their psychometric properties can be found in the supplementary information. A native-language version of each test was used in this study [36,37,38].

Cognitive performance

In addition to mental health-related outcome variables, we assessed the neuropsychological performance and cognitive functioning of the MS patients with several subtests of a neuropsychological battery designed for MS patients using the Cambridge Cognition Neuropsychological Battery (CANTAB). The battery included 3 computerized tests to measure psychomotor speed, working memory and sustained attention/vigilance via the Reaction Time (RTI), Spatial Working Memory (SWM) and Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP) tests respectively. The tests included in this battery are highly sensitive to cognitive impairments in MS across the disease severity spectrum [39]. Details about these measures are available in the supplementary information.

tDCS

We used a two-channel Neurostim stimulator device (MadinaTeb, Tehran, Iran) powered by a 9-volt alkaline battery. Electrical current was applied through a pair of rubber electrodes placed in saline-soaked sponge (5×5 cm) for a period of 20 min (with 30 s ramping up and 30 s ramping down) and a stimulation intensity of 1.5 mA (current density of 0.06 mA/cm2). The intervention was conducted by a trained tDCS operator and impedance was monitored and kept below to ensure patients’ tolerability and consistent current flow in each session. We had two stimulation conditions: active and sham tDCS. In the active condition, the anodal electrode was placed over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (left DLPFC) over the F3 electrode position according to the 10–20 EEG International System and the cathodal electrode was placed over the right frontopolar cortex (FPC) (electrode position Fp2) which includes orbitofrontal cortex (BA 10, 11) [40, 41], fixed with headbands. Both electrodes were positioned longitudinally along the medio-lateral axis of the target regions. To reduce shunting of current between the electrodes through the scalp, the edges had a distance of at least 6 cm. In the sham condition, a sham stimulation was employed with the same electrode configuration. Here, the electrical current was ramped up for 30 s followed by 30 s of stimulation and 30 s of ramping down to generate the same sensation as the active condition, and then was turned off without the participants’ knowledge. This method of sham stimulation has been proven reliable [42]. A survey was conducted after each session to document any reported side effects, but blinding efficacy (asking participants to guess about the type of stimulation) was not explored due to the multi-session design of the study. This aimed to prevent participants’ bias from habituation to tDCS-induced sensations over multiple sessions. After finalizing the study protocol, the patients in the sham group were assigned to active tDCS intervention, but the latter procedure was beyond the focus of the study protocol.

Procedure

Prior to the experiment, participants completed a brief questionnaire to evaluate their suitability for brain stimulation. Participants were instructed to prevent from caffein, nicotine, alcohol consumption and intensive physical activity before attending each stimulation session. The active tDCS and sham groups received 10 sessions of stimulation (three sessions per week, resulting in a total of three weeks plus an additional day) with 24-hour between-session intervals (except for the 4th and 8th sessions that had 48-h interval due to the weekend). Outcome measures (mental health and cognitive assessment) were evaluated before the first tDCS session (pre-intervention), and right after the end of the last tDCS session (post-intervention). All tDCS sessions were scheduled between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. and patients were monitored for sleep pressure to mitigate a potential impact of circadian variation on cortical excitability and neuroplasticity induction for all participants across all sessions [43, 44]. All sessions were conducted in the MS clinical neuroscience private clinic (Rasht, Iran) in a dedicated space for research. Before starting the experiment, the participants were given instructions about the cognitive tasks. Each stimulation session took about 40 min (preparation, stimulation, wrapping up time). The measurement sessions before the intervention and after the intervention took about 2 h. Each session was conducted on two separate days to prevent fatigue. The first day was dedicated to clinical assessment (quality of life, sleep, psychological distress), and the second day for cognitive assessment (psychomotor speed, working memory, attention/vigilance) (see Fig. 2). Both participants and experimenter were blinded. To maintain a double-blind design, a separate investigator prepared the device, while a technician unaware of the stimulation type (sham vs. real) and group assignment administered the stimulation. An independent researcher, blind to stimulation conditions and group assignment, evaluated the outcome measures, performed data analysis, and determined group assignments.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(A) This study was a randomized, double-blind trial. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: active tDCS and sham tDCS. Both groups underwent pre- and post-intervention assessment of mental health-related variables and cognitive performance with the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), MS battery. The anodal electrode was positioned over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC-F3), while the cathode was placed over the right frontopolar cortex (Fp2). (B) 3D models were utilized to examine the flow of electrical current in the brain following the specified protocol. The MR image was segmented into six tissue types: gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), CSF, skull, scalp, and air cavities using SPM8 from the Welcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging, London, UK, with an enhanced tissue probability map. The segmented images were used to create a 3D model with Simpleware software version 5 from Synopsys, Mountain View, CA, incorporating the electrodes and saline-soaked sponges. The distribution of current flow within the brain was then computed using the finite element method in COMSOL Multiphysics software version 5.2 from COMSOL Inc., Burlington, MA. The electric fields were visualized for stimulation intensities of 2.0 mA with an F3 anodal–Fp2 cathodal montage. note: This model illustrates the current flow for 2 mA tDCS for illustrative purposes. The induced electric field of 1.5 mA differs from the 2 mA field

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS, version 27.0 (IBM, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). The normality and homogeneity of data variance were confirmed by Shapiro-Wilk and Levin tests, respectively. Mixed model ANOVAs were conducted for the dependent variables (MSIS, DASS, MSQ scores; psychomotor speed, working memory and attention tasks) with “group” (active vs. sham) as the between-subject and time (pre-intervention, post-intervention) as the within-subject factors. Mauchly’s test was used to evaluate sphericity of the data before performing the respective ANOVAs (p < 0.05). In case of violation, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity. Post hoc comparisons were conducted with Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests for individual mean difference comparisons across groups (active 1.5 mA, sham) and time points (pre-intervention, post-intervention). Pearson’s correlation and exploratory linear regression analyses were also calculated to explore potential associations between mental health-related variables and cognitive performance. Data analysis was conducted on all randomized patients who completed the pre-and post-intervention assessments without regard to adherence to their randomization assignment. The critical level of significance was 0.05 for all statistical analyses.

Results

Data overview

Demographic information is summarized in Table 1. Patients tolerated the stimulation well and no adverse effects were reported during and after stimulation. No significant difference was found between the group ratings of tDCS side effects except for the burning sensation (p = 0.044) which was higher in the active group (Table 2). The burning sensation, however, did not correlate with any outcome measure. No significant between-group differences were observed for baseline measurements of outcome variables except for mean latency of RVP (Table 3 All patients completed the post-intervention cognitive assessment (n = 37), but five did not finish the mental health assessment sessions (n = 32).

Table 2 Means and SDs of reported tDCS side effects
Full size table
Table 3 Means and SDs of outcome variables before and after the tDCS
Full size table

Efficacy of tDCS on quality of life, sleep quality, and psychological distress

The results of the 2 (group) × 2 (time: pre, post) mixed model ANOVA showed a significant main effect of time (F1 = 7.94, p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.21) and a significant group×time interaction (F1 = 9.98, p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.25) but no main effect of group (F1 = 0.94, p = 0.338) on quality of life scores measured by the MSIS-29. Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests showed a significant increase in quality of life scores in patients with MS who received active tDCS after the intervention compared to pre-intervention (t = 4.74, p < 0.001). When compared to the sham group, active tDCS significantly improved quality of life scores after the intervention (t = 4,93, p < 0.001). Baseline between-group comparisons (active groups vs. sham) showed no significant differences in the pre-intervention scores (Fig. 3A, B, Table S1).

With respect to the sleep quality scores measured by the MSQ, the results of a 2 × 2 mixed model ANOVA showed a significant main effect of time (F1,30=30.598, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.505) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,30=37.314, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.554) but no main effect of group (F1,30=1.065, p = 0.31). Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests showed a significant improvement of sleep quality scores only in patients with MS that received active tDCS after the intervention compared to pre-intervention (ttotal sleep =4.50, p < 0.001, tinsomnia =4.48, p < 0.001, thypersomnia =3.29, p < 0.001) but not in the sham group. When compared to the sham group, the active tDCS group significantly improved with respect to the sleep total score (t = 3.38, p = 0.001), insomnia (t = 2.90, p = 0.005) and hypersomnia (t = 2.82, p = 0.006). Baseline between-group comparisons were not significant (p > 0.05) (Fig. 3C-H).

For psychological distress, a 3 (domain: depression, anxiety, stress) × 2 (time: pre, post) × 2 (group) mixed model ANOVA was conducted. The results showed significant main effects of time (F1,30=6.13, p = 0.019, ηp2 = 0.17), domain (F2,60=15.608, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.342) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,30=23.505, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.439). The main effect of group, and the domain×time, domain×group and domain×group×time interactions were not significant (Table S1). Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests showed a significant decrease in the DASS total score only in patients with MS who received active tDCS after the intervention compared to pre-intervention (t = 2.46, p = 0.020) but not in the sham group. Compared to the sham group, the active tDCS group showed significantly reduced psychological distress (tdepression =2.73, p = 0.008, tanxiety =1.99, df = 30, p = 0.050, tstress =2.43, p = 0.017) after the intervention. Baseline between-group comparisons (active groups vs. sham) showed no significant differences in the pre-intervention scores (p > 0.05) (Fig. 3M-P).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Effects of prefrontal active and sham tDCS on mental health variables. The left panel shows average outcome measures before and after the intervention for each group (within-group comparisons), while the right panels depict average measures at each time point (pre- and post-intervention) across groups (active vs. sham). Note: tDCS = transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; DASS = Depression Anxiety Stress Scale. Asterisks [*] in the left panels indicate significant differences between pre- and post-intervention measures in all groups. Asterisks in the right panels signify significant differences between active (1.5 mA) and sham tDCS at each time point. “ns” indicates non-significant results. All pairwise comparisons used Fisher’s LSD multiple comparisons tests, and error bars represent standard error of the mean (s.e.m.)

Full size image

Efficacy of tDCS on cognitive functions in MS patients

Psychomotor speed

Psychomotor speed was evaluated with the RTI task. A significant main effect of time (F1,35=127.32, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.784) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,35=73.491, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.677), but no main effect of group was found for the 5-choice movement time. A similar significant main effect of time (F1,35=11.684, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.25) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,35=34.992, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.50), but a non-significant main effect of group was found for the 5-choice reaction time (Table S1). Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests revealed a significantly faster movement time in patients who received active tDCS after the intervention compared to pre-intervention (t = 5.56, p < 0.001). Additionally, in the post-intervention condition, movement time was significantly shorter in the active group compared to the sham tDCS group (t = 3.86, p < 0.001). For reaction time, neither group responded faster after intervention as compared to the pre-intervention condition. However, performance after intervention was significantly faster in the active vs. sham group (t = 2.08, p = 0.043). Baseline between-group comparisons were not significant in both outcome variables (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4A-H).

Other outcome variables of interest in the RTI task were simple-choice movement time and reaction time. Here, the results of the mixed model ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time (F1,35=17.476, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.333) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,35=20.905, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.374) but no main effect of group on movement time, and significant main effects of time (F1,35=24.729, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.414) and group (F1,35=6.439, p = 0.016, ηp2 = 0.155) and interaction between both variables (F1,35=40.317, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.535) for the reaction time. Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests showed significantly faster movement and reaction times in the psychomotor speed task in patients who received active tDCS after the intervention compared to pre-intervention (t = 4.09, p < 0.001; t = 5.60, p < 0.001). Both movement and reaction times in the psychomotor speed task after intervention were significantly faster in the active tDCS compared to the sham group (t = 2.92, p = 0.004; t = 5.31, p < 0.001). Baseline between-group comparisons were not significant for both outcome variables (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4A-H).

Working memory

Here strategy scores and total errors were analyzed. For the strategy scores, the results of the mixed model ANOVA showed no significant main effects of time, group, or their interaction (Table S1). For the total errors, however, a significant main effect of time (F1,35=9.081, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.206) but no main effect of group or the group×time interaction was observed. Accordingly, no post hoc tests were conducted for errors (Fig. 4- I-L).

Attention and vigilance

The results of the mixed model ANOVA showed a significant main effect of time (F1,35=17.97, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.337) and a significant group×time interaction (F1,35=46.299, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.569) but no main effect of group (F1,35=2.53, p = 0.120) on hits (accurate responses). Patients who received active tDCS had a significantly higher number of hits after intervention vs. pre-intervention (t = 2.96, p = 0.004), and the number of hits was also significantly higher in the real intervention than the number of hits in those who received sham tDCS after intervention (t = 2.79, p = 0.006). Similarly, significant main effects of time (F1,35=211.259, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.858), group (F1,35=30.05, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.462) and group×time interaction (F1,35=241.50, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.873) emerged for the mean reaction time. Fisher’s LSD post-hoc test showed a faster reaction time after the intervention as compared to the pre-intervention only in the active tDCS group (t = 7.28, p < 0.001). Here, however, mean reaction time at baseline was significantly different across groups, but not after intervention (Fig. 4M-P).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Effects of prefrontal active and sham tDCS on cognition. The left panel shows average outcome measures before and after the intervention for each group (within-group comparisons). The right panels present average measures at each time point (pre- and post-intervention) across groups (active vs. sham). Note: tDCS = transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; RTI = Reaction Time; SWM = Spatial Working Memory; RVP = Rapid Visual Processing. Floating asterisks [*] in the left panel indicate significant differences between pre- and post-intervention measurements in all groups. Asterisks in the right panel indicate significant differences between active stimulation (1.5 mA) and sham tDCS at each time point. “ns” denotes non-significant results. All pairwise comparisons used Fisher’s LSD multiple comparisons test, and error bars represent standard error of the mean (s.e.m.)

Full size image

Interplay between cognitive improvements and mental health outcomes

To investigate the relationship between cognitive functions and mental health outcomes, we performed a correlational analysis followed by linear regression analyses. We first calculated Pearson’s correlations between mental health outcomes and cognitive task performance after intervention. Enhanced quality of life was significantly correlated with faster performance in the psychomotor task (r5choice − move−time=-0.383, p < 0.05, r5choice − reaction−time=-0.481, p < 0.01, rsimple−move−time=-0.587, p < 0.01) and improved attention/vigilance (i.e., higher performance accuracy) also showed negative correlations with insomnia (r=-0.434, p < 0.05), hypersomnia (r=-0.423, p < 0.05), and overall sleep difficulties (r=-0.478, p < 0.01) (i.e., higher accuracy was associated with lower sleep disturbances). Other significant correlations are detailed in supplementary Table S2. Following correlational analysis, multiple regression analyses were conducted to see how changes in cognitive performance predict mental health outcome variables and vice versa. Briefly, improvements in psychomotor speed and attention/vigilance after the intervention significantly predicted better quality of life and sleep quality. In turn, a higher quality of life predicted cognitive improvements across all three domains, while attention and vigilance were also influenced by sleep quality and psychological distress (Fig. 5, supplementary Table S3). Due to the relatively low sample size, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Fig. 5
figure 5

The relationship between cognitive improvement and mental health outcomes. (A) Results of multiple linear regressions predicting how enhanced cognitive performance forecasts improved mental health in MS patients. (B) Results of multiple linear regressions predicting how improved mental health forecasts enhanced cognitive performance in MS patients

Full size image

Discussion

As a neuroinflammatory disease, MS impairs neuronal efficacy and neuroplasticity. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as non-invasive brain stimulation, have the potential to enhance the outcomes of pharmacological and physical interventions in MS by enhancing neuroplasticity and functional connectivity [45,46,47] and potentially have anti-inflammatory effects as observed in several NIBS studies [48, 49], although the latter is not completely clarified. In this randomized, double-blind study, we investigated the effectiveness of repeated prefrontal tDCS in enhancing mental health and cognitive functions in MS patients to assess their impact and potential associations between improvements. Patients receiving real tDCS reported a significantly better quality of life and fewer sleep issues post-intervention, along with lower psychological distress levels compared to the sham group. Additionally, those treated with prefrontal tDCS outperformed in a neuropsychological test battery assessing psychomotor speed, working memory, and visual attention, areas often compromised in MS patients.

The use of tDCS to improve motor and/or cognitive deficits in MS has been less common compared to other neurological/psychiatric conditions. Moreover, results have been mixed so far. While some studies showed promising benefits in ameliorating fatigue, pain, and cognitive symptoms, but inconsistent effects of tDCS on motor symptoms [25, 26], others show a more promising effect on motor functions [27] which could partially be due to heterogeneous protocols applied in these studies, but also different patient characteristics. This is the first study that specifically investigated the efficacy of tDCS on quality of life, mental health-related variables and cognitive functioning of patients with MS. Our study provides supportive evidence for the efficacy of tDCS in improving quality of life and amelioration of psychological and cognitive deficits in patients with MS. Here, the applied protocol and proposed mechanisms of effects are discussed.

Prefrontal tDCS for promoting mental health and improving cognition in MS

Prefrontal NIBS, including tDCS, have been widely used to enhance mental health and cognitive functions in clinical populations [50,51,52]. In the same line, our findings show that the intervention improved patients’ quality of life and reduced sleep difficulties, depression, and anxiety. Sleep improvement after the active tDCS can be explained by the more recently stressed role of the cortico-thalamo-cortical feedback loop, which is a top-down regulatory system related to cortical areas (e.g., PFC), in regulating arousal and sleep [53]. Mood-alleviating effects can be partially explained by enhanced cognitive control as a result of tDCS over the DLPFC, which regulates mood and valence of emotional experiences [54, 55]. Importantly, there is a link between the prefrontal cortex, especially the DLPFC, the medial PFC, and the amygdala network in MS patients who experience emotional difficulties [56], and reduced depression, anxiety, and distress following intervention might be explained via this prefrontal-amygdala related emotion regulation. Briefly, upregulating DLPFC activity can reduce amygdala activity [57], which is usually hyperactive during negative emotional processing in MS [56]. This effect, coupled with the functional connectivity-enhancing effect of tDCS [58], may be a possible mechanism of action.

In addition to mental health-related variables, our intervention aimed to improve cognitive deficits in MS patients. The rationale behind the use of prefrontal tDCS for enhancing cognition mostly comes from the involvement of different regions of the prefrontal cortex in various aspects of cognitive functions [52, 59, 60] which seems to be at least partially applicable for MS. Cognitive impairment in MS is the consequence of widespread lesions in the brain and frequently includes deficits in complex attention, efficiency of information processing, executive functioning, processing speed, and long-term memory [4, 18]. A recent large-scale neuroimaging study demonstrated a causal link between MS pathophysiology and various brain regions, including the frontal and prefrontal cortices—particularly the orbitofrontal cortex—and connected subcortical areas like the parahippocampal gyrus [23]. Our study applied tDCS over DLPFC and right FPC which are important for cognitive deficits in MS and improved psychomotor speed and attention/vigilance. These findings align with extensive evidence supporting pro-cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS in neuropsychiatric disorders marked by executive and cognitive deficits, including mood and anxiety disorders [61, 62], obsessive-compulsive disorder [63, 64], schizophrenia [65, 66], and substance use disorder [67, 68]. Pro-cognitive effects have also been observed in neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease and stroke [69, 70] as well as in major neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD and autism [71,72,73].

Comparing our study’s findings with previous tDCS studies in MS is also informative. Recent systematic reviews and metanalyses of tDCS studies conducted in MS show inconsistent results about the cognitive effects of tDCS with some studies reporting clear benefits in ameliorating cognitive symptoms [25], some partial improvement in specific aspects of cognition (e.g., vigilance) [27] and some with no strong evidence for effectiveness of tDCS on cognition [26]. Studies with a focus on cognitive functions have typically applied anodal tDCS to the left DLPFC, using return electrodes on the right DLPFC, right shoulder, or right supraorbital area, with stimulation intensities ranging from 1.5 to 2 mA and durations between 20 and 30 min [27]. Our study aimed to shed light on the effects of tDCS on specific secondary deficits, but also on the interplay between cognitive functions and mental health domains, both significantly affected by MS but understudied in previous research. Importantly, here we observed an interplay between mental health outcomes and cognitive improvement, indicating that the impaired domains of mental health and cognitive deficits are interrelated in MS.

One consideration regarding the protocol in the present study (anodal F3- cathodal Fp2) is the use of the reference electrode over the right FPC instead of the right DLPFC. The bilateral DLPFC protocol can also be applied if cognitive functions are the main focus, as indicated in previous tDCS studies in MS [27] and other neuropsychiatric disorders [50, 74]. In this study, we also aimed to explore the impact of the intervention on participants’ emotional experiences. FPC, which includes the orbitofrontal cortex [41], was selected over the right DLPFC due to its significant role in emotional regulation and direct connections with subcortical regions [59]. The relative efficacy of DLPFC-FPC versus bilateral DLPFC tDCS needs to be compared to determine which is more effective in enhancing mental health and cognition-related variables. In this line, a more comprehensive understanding of tDCS mechanisms can be achieved by incorporating neurophysiological measures that assess changes in cortical excitability (e.g., TMS paradigms) [44], functional connectivity (e.g., EEG, fMRI), and biomarkers related to inflammation (e.g., BDNF) and neuroplasticity (e.g., EEG, TMS-EEG) [75]. This data can inform personalized treatment strategies and enhance therapeutic outcomes for MS patients.

tDCS broader application for mental health improvement in MS

In addition to improving cognitive and mental health outcomes for MS patients, tDCS can address a broader range of emotional difficulties in more practical and feasible contexts. It can specifically address mood dysregulation and fatigue— two common issues in MS—making them priority areas for tDCS and NIBS interventions. A large body of tDCS studies have shown that consecutive applications of tDCS can improve depression [76,77,78] and fatigue [79, 80] suggesting their use for promoting mental health in MS patients. A key advantage of tDCS for these issues is its suitability for home use in contrast to modalities like transcranial magnetic stimulation. Recent advancements in home-based applications of transcranial electrical and alternating current stimulation support the safety and feasibility [81, 82] of tele-supervised home-based tDCS for major depressive disorder [77, 83], Alzheimer’s disease [84], and fatigue in MS patients [85]. This can have clinical implications for future applications of tDCS in MS.

Limitations

We acknowledge that our study has some limitations. Firstly, although the sample size of this study is larger than the majority of the previous tDCS studies in MS [26, 27], it is still relatively small, and therefore, these findings need to be confirmed in larger trials in the future. Secondly, we did not measure outcome variables over a reasonable follow-up period to determine how long the observed effects lasted and the intervention was not applied daily but every second or third day, which might have limited efficacy. The double-blind procedure should be implemented with allocation concealment and devices featuring sham features for the experimenters, which was not feasible in this study. Finally, we did not include any physiological measures, which would have been informative to understand how brain functions and physiology are affected by the intervention and how they align with the behavioural results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study investigated how anodal and cathodal tDCS targeting the left DLPFC and right FPC affect quality of life, sleep difficulties, psychological distress, and cognitive functions in MS patients after 10 brain stimulation sessions. The group that received real intervention vs. the placebo group, showed significant improvement in quality of life, and reduced psychological distress and sleep difficulties. These enhancements correlated with increased psychomotor speed and attention/vigilance. Improvements in cognitive function and mental health outcomes were interrelated. These findings suggest that repeated DLPFC-FPC tDCS has the potential to be a safe and promising intervention for treating secondary symptoms (mental-health-related variables and cognitive deficits) in patients with MS. Future studies are recommended to include neurophysiological measures alongside behavioral outcomes to enhance understanding of tDCS mechanisms in MS and to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of tDCS efficacy.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are publicly available: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Mental_Health_Cognitive_Function_Data/26490208.

Abbreviations

MS:

Multiple Sclerosis

tDCS:

transcranial direct current stimulation

MSIS-29:

Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale

MSQ:

Mini Sleep Questionnaire

DASS-21:

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21

RTI:

Reaction Time task

SWM:

Spatial Working Memory task

RVP:

Rapid Visual Information Processing task

DLPFC:

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

FPC:

Frontopolar cortex

References

  1. Attfield KE, Jensen LT, Kaufmann M, Friese MA, Fugger L. The immunology of multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2022;22(12):734–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet (London England). 2008;372(9648):1502–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGinley MP, Goldschmidt CH, Rae-Grant AD. Diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review. JAMA. 2021;325(8):765–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiaravalloti ND, DeLuca J. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(12):1139–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ajdacic-Gross V, Steinemann N, Horváth G, Rodgers S, Kaufmann M, Xu Y et al. Onset symptom clusters in multiple sclerosis: characteristics, comorbidities, and risk factors. Front Neurol. 2021;12.

  6. Marrie RA, Reingold S, Cohen J, Stuve O, Trojano M, Sorensen PS, et al. The incidence and prevalence of psychiatric disorders in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Multiple Scler J. 2015;21(3):305–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Laslett LL, Honan C, Turner JA, Dagnew B, Campbell JA, Gill TK, et al. Poor sleep and multiple sclerosis: associations with symptoms of multiple sclerosis and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022;93(11):1162–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ben-Zacharia AB. Therapeutics for multiple sclerosis symptoms. Mt Sinai J Medicine: J Translational Personalized Med. 2011;78(2):176–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benedict RHB, Amato MP, DeLuca J, Geurts JJG. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical management, MRI, and therapeutic avenues. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(10):860–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Disanto G, Zecca C, MacLachlan S, Sacco R, Handunnetthi L, Meier UC, et al. Prodromal symptoms of multiple sclerosis in primary care. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(6):1162–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrari AJ, Santomauro DF, Aali A, Abate YH, Abbafati C, Abbastabar H, et al. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet. 2024.

  12. Polanía R, Nitsche MA, Ruff CC. Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21(2):174–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Salehinejad MA, Siniatchkin M. Safety of noninvasive brain stimulation in children. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghanavati E, Salehinejad MA, De Melo L, Nitsche MA, Kuo MF. NMDA receptor–related mechanisms of dopaminergic modulation of tDCS-induced neuroplasticity. Cereb Cortex 2022;32(23):5478–88.

  15. Broome ST, Louangaphay K, Keay KA, Leggio GM, Musumeci G, Castorina A. Dopamine: an immune transmitter. Neural Regen Res. 2020;15(12):2173–85.

  16. Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527(Pt 3):633–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Yavari F, Chhabra H, Polania R, Nitsche MA. In: Quevedo J, Brunoni AR, Hamani C, editors. Mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation. Interventional Psychiatry: Academic; 2024. pp. 149–86.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cader S, Cifelli A, Abu-Omar Y, Palace J, Matthews PM. Reduced brain functional reserve and altered functional connectivity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2005;129(2):527–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pantano P, Mainero C, Caramia F. Functional brain reorganization in multiple sclerosis: evidence from fMRI studies. J Neuroimaging. 2006;16(2):104–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rocca MA, Filippi M. Functional MRI in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging. 2007;17(Suppl 1):s36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rocca MA, Schoonheim MM, Valsasina P, Geurts JJG, Filippi M. Task- and resting-state fMRI studies in multiple sclerosis: from regions to systems and time-varying analysis. Current status and future perspective. NeuroImage: Clin. 2022;35:103076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tahedl M, Levine SM, Greenlee MW, Weissert R, Schwarzbach JV. Functional connectivity in multiple sclerosis: recent findings and future directions. Front Neurol. 2018;9.

  23. Sun D, Wang R, Du Q, Zhang Y, Chen H, Shi Z, et al. Causal relationship between multiple sclerosis and cortical structure: a mendelian randomization study. J Transl Med. 2024;22(1):83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Colato E, Stutters J, Tur C, Narayanan S, Arnold DL, Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott CAM, et al. Predicting disability progression and cognitive worsening in multiple sclerosis using patterns of grey matter volumes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92(9):995–1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hiew S, Nguemeni C, Zeller D. Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29(2):648–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Uygur-Kucukseymen E, Pacheco-Barrios K, Yuksel B, Gonzalez-Mego P, Soysal A, Fregni F. Non-invasive brain stimulation on clinical symptoms in multiple sclerosis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple Scler Relat Disorders. 2023;78:104927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li S, Zhang Q, Zheng S, Li G, Li S, He L et al. Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive and motor functions in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2023;14.

  28. Saiote C, Goldschmidt T, Timäus C, Steenwijk MD, Opitz A, Antal A, et al. Impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32:423–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mortezanejad M, Ehsani F, Masoudian N, Zoghi M, Jaberzadeh S. Comparing the effects of multi-session anodal trans-cranial direct current stimulation of primary motor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices on fatigue and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(8):1103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chalah MA, Grigorescu C, Kümpfel T, Lefaucheur J-P, Padberg F, Palm U, et al. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on sleep in patients with multiple sclerosis–a pilot study. Neurophysiol Clin. 2022;52(1):28–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsu W-Y, Cheng C-H, Zanto TP, Gazzaley A, Bove RM. Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Cognition, Mood, Pain, and fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2021;12:626113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Jagadish A, Shankaranarayana AM, Natarajan M, Solomon JM. Transcranial direct current stimulation for fatigue in neurological conditions: a systematic scoping review. Physiother Res Int. 2024;29(1):e2054. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2054.

  33. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001;124(Pt 5):962–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zomer J. Mini Sleep Questionnaire (mSQ) for screening large populations for EDS complaints. Sleep. 1985.

  35. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. 2011.

  36. Manavipour D. Psychometric properties of the Sleep Questionnaire. Shefaye Khatam. 2015;3(3):15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ayatollahi P, Nafissi S, Eshraghian M, Tarazi A. Cross-cultural adaptation of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) for Iranian MS patients, evaluation of reliability and validity. Tehran Univ Med J. 2006;64(1):62–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Karimi S, Andayeshgar B, Khatony A. Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in patients with multiple sclerosis in Kermanshah-Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20:166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Roque DT, Teixeira RAA, Zachi EC, Ventura DF. The use of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) in neuropsychological assessment: application in Brazilian research with control children and adults with neurological disorders. Psychol Neurosci. 2011;4:255–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moayedi M, Salomons TV, Dunlop KA, Downar J, Davis KD. Connectivity-based parcellation of the human frontal polar cortex. Brain Struct Funct. 2015;220(5):2603–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kringelbach ML. The human orbitofrontal cortex: linking reward to hedonic experience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(9):691–702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117(4):845–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Salehinejad MA, Wischnewski M, Ghanavati E, Mosayebi-Samani M, Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Cognitive functions and underlying parameters of human brain physiology are associated with chronotype. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4672.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Salehinejad MA, Ghanavati E, Reinders J, Hengstler JG, Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Sleep-dependent upscaled excitability, saturated neuroplasticity, and modulated cognition in the human brain. eLife. 2022;11:e69308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Effects of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation on Cognition. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2012;43(3):192–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. León Ruiz M, Sospedra M, Arce Arce S, Tejeiro-Martínez J, Benito-León J. Current evidence on the potential therapeutic applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Neurología (English Edition). 2022;37(3):199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cirillo G, Di Pino G, Capone F, Ranieri F, Florio L, Todisco V, et al. Neurobiological after-effects of non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2017;10(1):1–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Zuo C, Cao H, Feng F, Li G, Huang Y, Zhu L, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation exerts anti-inflammatory effects via modulating glial activation in mice with chronic unpredictable mild stress-induced depression. Int Immunopharmacol. 2022;109:108788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sasso V, Bisicchia E, Latini L, Ghiglieri V, Cacace F, Carola V, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces remote apoptotic cell death and inflammation after focal brain injury. J Neuroinflammation. 2016;13(1):150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Begemann MJ, Brand BA, Ćurčić-Blake B, Aleman A, Sommer IE. Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2020:1–22.

  51. Rostami R, Kazemi R, Jabbari A, Madani AS, Rostami H, Taherpour MA, et al. Efficacy and clinical predictors of response to rTMS treatment in pharmacoresistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): a retrospective study. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Narmashiri A, Akbari F. The effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on the cognitive functions: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev. 2023.

  53. Herrero Babiloni A, Bellemare A, Beetz G, Vinet S-A, Martel MO, Lavigne GJ, et al. The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on sleep disturbances among different neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions: a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev. 2021;55:101381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Salehinejad MA, Ghanavai E, Rostami R, Nejati V. Cognitive control dysfunction in emotion dysregulation and psychopathology of major depression (MD): evidence from transcranial brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). J Affect Disord. 2017;210:241–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nejati V, Majdi R, Salehinejad MA, Nitsche MA. The role of dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the processing of emotional dimensions. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1971.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Meyer-Arndt L, Kuchling J, Brasanac J, Hermann A, Asseyer S, Bellmann-Strobl J et al. Prefrontal-amygdala emotion regulation and depression in multiple sclerosis. Brain Commun. 2022;4(3).

  57. Vicario CM, Salehinejad MA, Felmingham K, Martino G, Nitsche MA. A systematic review on the therapeutic effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews. 2019;96:219–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Polanía R, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Modulating cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33(10):2499–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Salehinejad MA, Ghanavati E, Rashid MHA, Nitsche MA. Hot and cold executive functions in the brain: a prefrontal-cingular network. Brain Neurosci Adv. 2021;5:23982128211007769.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Dedoncker J, Brunoni AR, Baeken C, Vanderhasselt M-A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in healthy and neuropsychiatric samples: influence of stimulation parameters. Brain Stimul. 2016;9(4):501–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nikolin S, Moffa A, Razza L, Martin D, Brunoni A, Palm U, et al. Time-course of the tDCS antidepressant effect: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2023;125:110752.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jafari E, Alizadehgoradel J, Pourmohseni Koluri F, Nikoozadehkordmirza E, Refahi M, Taherifard M, et al. Intensified electrical stimulation targeting lateral and medial prefrontal cortices for the treatment of social anxiety disorder: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-comparison study. Brain Stimul. 2021;14(4):974–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Alizadehgoradel J, Molaei B, Barzegar Jalali K, Pouresmali A, Sharifi K, Hallajian A-H, et al. Targeting the prefrontal-supplementary motor network in obsessive-compulsive disorder with intensified electrical stimulation in two dosages: a randomized, controlled trial. Translational Psychiatry. 2024;14(1):78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Sá KN, Baptista RF, Shirahige L, Razza LB, Nogueira M, Coura MHF, et al. Evidence-based umbrella review of non-invasive brain stimulation in anxiety disorders. Eur J Psychiatry. 2023;37(3):167–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hallajian A-H, Sharifi K, Rostami R, Saeed F, Mokarian Rajabi S, Zangenehnia N, et al. Neurocognitive effects of 3 mA prefrontal electrical stimulation in schizophrenia: a randomized sham-controlled tDCS-fMRI study protocol. PLoS ONE, 2024;19(8):e0306422.

  66. Li X, Dai J, Liu Q, Zhao Z, Zhang X. Efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive function for cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. 2024;170:174–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Nakamura-Palacios EM, Lopes IB, Souza RA, Klauss J, Batista EK, Conti CL, et al. Ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as a target of the dorsolateral prefrontal modulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in drug addiction. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2016;123(10):1179–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Alizadehgoradel J, Nejati V, Sadeghi Movahed F, Imani S, Taherifard M, Mosayebi-Samani M, et al. Repeated stimulation of the dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex improves executive dysfunctions and craving in drug addiction: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(3):582–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Flöel A. tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases. NeuroImage. 2014;85:934–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Begemann MJ, Brand BA, Ćurčić-Blake B, Aleman A, Sommer IE. Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2020;50(15):2465–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Salehinejad MA, Ghanavati E, Glinski B, Hallajian A-H, Azarkolah A. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in major neurodevelopmental disorders: ADHD, autism, and dyslexia. Brain Behav. 2022;n/a(n/a):e2724.

  72. Zemestani M, Hoseinpanahi O, Salehinejad MA, Nitsche MA. The impact of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on theory of mind, emotion regulation and emotional-behavioral functions in children with autism disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, and parallel-group study. Autism Res. 2022;n/a(n/a).

  73. Salehinejad MA, Ghayerin E, Nejati V, Yavari F, Nitsche MA. Domain-specific involvement of the Right Posterior Parietal Cortex in Attention Network and attentional control of ADHD: a Randomized, cross-over, sham-controlled tDCS study. Neuroscience. 2020;444:149–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Regenold WT, Deng Z-D, Lisanby SH. Noninvasive neuromodulation of the prefrontal cortex in mental health disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47(1):361–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Tremblay S, Rogasch NC, Premoli I, Blumberger DM, Casarotto S, Chen R, et al. Clinical utility and prospective of TMS–EEG. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;130(5):802–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Moffa AH, Martin D, Alonzo A, Bennabi D, Blumberger DM, Benseñor IM, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for major depressive disorder: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020;99:109836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ruffini G, Salvador R, Castaldo F, Baleeiro T, Camprodon JA, Chopra M et al. Multichannel tDCS with Advanced Targeting for Major Depressive Disorder: A Tele-Supervised At-Home Pilot Study. medRxiv. 2024.

  78. Salehinejad MA, Abdi M, Dadashi M, Zolghadriha A, Salvador R, Ruffini G et al. Optimized multichannel tDCS protocol for clinical use in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized, controlled trial. OFS Preprints. 2024.

  79. Azarkolah A, Noorbala AA, Ansari S, Hallajian A-H, Salehinejad MA. Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Level and disability of patients with Fibromyalgia: a systematic review of Randomized controlled trials with parallel-Group Design. Brain Sci. 2024;14(1):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Jagadish A, Shankaranarayana AM, Natarajan M, Solomon JM. Transcranial direct current stimulation for fatigue in neurological conditions: a systematic scoping review. Physiother Res Int. 2024;29(1):e2054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Pilloni G, Vogel-Eyny A, Lustberg M, Best P, Malik M, Walton-Masters L, et al. Tolerability and feasibility of at-home remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (RS-tDCS): single-center evidence from 6,779 sessions. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(3):707–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Cappon D, den Boer T, Yu W, LaGanke N, Fox R, Brozgol M, et al. An Educational Program for Remote Training and Supervision of Home-based Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: feasibility and preliminary effectiveness. Neuromodulation. 2024;27(4):636–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Cappon D, den Boer T, Jordan C, Yu W, Lo A, LaGanke N, et al. Safety and Feasibility of Tele-supervised home-based Transcranial Direct current stimulation for major depressive disorder. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13:765370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Cappon D, Fox R, den Boer T, Yu W, LaGanke N, Cattaneo G, et al. Tele-supervised home-based transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) for Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2023;17:1168673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Charvet LE, Dobbs B, Shaw MT, Bikson M, Datta A, Krupp LB. Remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: results from a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Multiple Scler J. 2018;24(13):1760–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the MS Association located in the city of Rasht, Iran for their assistance in recruiting patients. We also thank Neda Zakibakhsh and Elaheh Hassanpoor for their technical support to secure tES operator blinding and randomization of participants.

Funding

Not applicable.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

    Nasim Zakibakhsh, Sajjad Basharpoor & Mohammad Narimani

  2. Clinical Development and Research Unit, Ghaem Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

    Hamidreza Ghalyanchi Langroodi

  3. Department of Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany

    Michael A Nitsche & Mohammad Ali Salehinejad

  4. Bielefeld University, University Hospital OWL, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, University Clinic of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Bielefeld, Germany

    Michael A Nitsche

  5. German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Bochum, Germany

    Michael A Nitsche

  6. School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Ali Salehinejad

Authors
  1. Nasim Zakibakhsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sajjad Basharpoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamidreza Ghalyanchi Langroodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad Narimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael A Nitsche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohammad Ali Salehinejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NZ: conceptualization, investigation, data curation, visualization, validation, formal analysis; SB & HGL & MN: supervision, resources, project administration, data curation; MAN: writing—review & editing; MAS: supervision, methodology, visualization, writing original draft, writing—review & editing, visualization, formal analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sajjad Basharpoor or Mohammad Ali Salehinejad.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients gave their written informed consent to participate in the study. The protocol was conducted in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethical Committee at Mohaghegh Ardabili University.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Michael Nitsche is a member of the Scientific Advisory Boards of Neuroelectrics and Precisis. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zakibakhsh, N., Basharpoor, S., Ghalyanchi Langroodi, H. et al. Repeated prefrontal tDCS for improving mental health and cognitive deficits in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. J Transl Med 22, 843 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05638-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05638-1

Keywords

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us