Abstract
Noninvasive brain stimulation includes repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and emerges as a prospective approach for addiction treatment in clinical practices. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is regarded as the most effective stimulation target, giving its important position in controlling cue-elicited drug craving and initiating drug abuse. In this paper, through literature searches (e.g. Pubmed, Google Scholar), 34 studies (2003–2021) were identified examining the effect of rTMS, tDCS on cravings, and consumption of substance use disorders, including tobacco, alcohol, opioids, and stimulants. We summarize the main methods, designs, and effects of rTMS or tDCS that are delivered to the DLPFC on different types of addiction. We conclude that targeting DLPFC might be effective for all types of drug addiction.
Keywords: noninvasive brain stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, addiction
Introduction
Addiction impacts public health significantly, with a high relapse rate in the current set of management. In past decades, noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), is demonstrating their efficiency and advantages as alternative approaches in addiction treatment. The basic principle of brain stimulation-based therapy is to restore the physiological synaptic strength and to rehabilitate the neural circuits impaired in disease.
Currently, there are multiple protocols for clinical studies using rTMS to treat substance use disorders. The lack of protocol consistency in such rTMS studies is common, as there is no systematic approach to elucidate which parameters can best achieve specific goals. Nonetheless, there is general consensus among researchers regarding the cerebral cortex to be stimulated: targeting the modulatory midbrain cortical system, most studies have targeted the DLPFC, and only a few have stimulated the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (Hanlon et al., 2017). Furthermore, most studies tend to stimulate only one side of the brain, usually the left side, although some studies comparing stimulation of the DLPFC on the left and right side of the brain have not shown significant brain lateralization effects (Liu et al., 2017). Addiction leads to systemic changes in the mesolimbic dopamine system and connected brain regions, including nucleus accumbens, amygdala, the ventral tegmental area, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus (Hou et al., 2014). Within all these areas, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) direct or indirect projects to and controls the functioning of rest regions, and is controlling cue-elicited drug cravings. In terms of manipulation, targeting DLPFC has operational convenience due to the shallow location compared to other regions (Luigjes et al., 2019). Indeed, NIBS-mediated functional modulations on the DLPFC affect the release of neurotransmitters, such as the dopamine efflux in different brain regions (Spagnolo and Goldman, 2017), or altered response inhibition in addicts (Goldstein and Volkow, 2011). DLPFC itself is involved in emotion regulation, cognitive control, and decision-making, all of which were implicated in addiction (Volkow and Baler, 2014). All these pieces of evidence emphasized the potential importance of DLPFC in multiple aspects in addiction rehabilitation.
Here we summarize the effects of noninvasive stimulation targeting DLPFC in the context of addiction medicine. For the literature search, “transcranial magnetic stimulation” and “addiction” or “transcranial direct stimulation” and “addiction” was input on PubMed or Google scholar from 2003 to 2021.
The Basic Principles and Applications in Addiction of tDCS and rTMS
Both tDCS and TMS could modulate cerebral cortex function in two directions: excitation and inhibition (Jansen et al., 2013). Through saline-soaked electrode pads, tDCS sends a constant direct current to the cortex. Some parts of the current spread along the scalp and the others penetrate the skull into the brain, which causes intracranial depolarization/hyperpolarization in a safe, efficient, and painless way. Previous research has demonstrated that this type of current effectively regulates the excitability of the cortical circuit (Nitsche and Paulus, 2001). The anode stimulation increases resting potential depolarization and may increase the frequency of spontaneous discharge of neurons, which leads to increased neuronal excitability, while the cathode stimulation induces the resting potential hyperpolarization and reduces the excitability of neurons.
The principle of TMS is to place a coil over the skull, and pass through alternating short current pulses, which generate alternating magnetic fields that induce electrical pulses in the brain (George and Aston-Jones, 2010). The induced current within the cortex is therefore determined by the frequency, strength, direction, and area of the current passing through the coil. Generally speaking, low-frequency (LF ≤ 1 Hz) TMS decreases neuronal activity and cortical excitability, and high-frequency (HF ≥ 5 Hz) TMS evokes a contrary outcome (Hallett, 2007).
An increasing number of tDCS and TMS studies have been performed for treating addictive disorders. Despite the design differences (e.g. duration of sessions, interval time, number, and sample size), most of the studies have adopted targeted stimulation to the DLPFC for the purpose of reducing cue-evoked craving (Spagnolo and Goldman, 2017).
The pros and cons of the tDCS and TMS
Generally speaking, tDCS has several advantages compared with TMS, for example, tDCS is compact, portable, lower cost, and has small electrodes, which makes it more suitable for household and medical investigation. However, tDCS has several shortcomings, first, tDCS has a temporary skin reaction to the electrode, which might cause pain; second, the spatial accuracy of tDCS is worse than TMS (Gandiga et al., 2006); and third, tDCS is usually made by two electrodes on the scalp, and current formed between the reference electrode and the target electrode will interfere with the cortical excitability (Nitsche et al., 2007).
TMS is a safe means of physical therapy. Compared with drug therapy, it has a quick effect, a few side effects, and is not easy to become addicted. TMS is low cost for long-term treatment. Compared with other physical therapy, especially electroconvulsive therapy, it is safe, painless, and does not affect cognitive function. The main side effects of TMS are head discomfort, such as dizziness and headache. There are a few cases of epilepsy. The most common discomfort during treatment is local to the scalp. Most of these cases are mild and temporary. They usually fade after a week.
tDCS of the DLPFC as a treatment for addiction
Preventing relapse is one major task in addiction management. Although the influence factors and the neurobiological mechanism are not fully clear, a great amount of evidence indicates that addiction relapse is largely affected by craving. The application of tDCS on the DLPFC to modulate craving brings up abundant results: in a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study, tDCS stimulation on both the left and the right DLPFC results in remarkably reduced cue-provoked craving (Fregni et al., 2008), and a cumulative effect of tDCS significantly attenuating smoking cue-induced craving has also been confirmed in another study (Boggio et al., 2009). Moreover, the smokers exhibited significantly decreased nicotine cravings and more active rejections to cigarette offers after tDCS stimulation on the right DLPFC than those with sham treatment (Fecteau et al., 2014). One study found that tDCS reduces the negative effect rather than cigarette craving and attention performances in overnight abstinent smokers, possibly due to the experiment design and withdrawal length differences (Xu et al., 2013). Another study reported that active prefrontal tDCS significantly decreased the rest craving state in the abstinent methamphetamine users, but increased craving if the stimulation is administrated during cue exposure (Shahbabaie et al., 2014). Participants who received active stimulation of tDCS showed reduced alcohol consumption, decreased craving, and improved cognitive performances (da Silva et al., 2013). In a study on alcohol addiction, 13 alcohol addicts were selected for double-blind real and sham tDCS stimulation with electrodes placed in the DLPFC (anode-left/cathode-right and anode-right/cathode-left), and alcohol-related videos were presented to the participants to induce alcohol cravings, and craving was measured by the Visual Analogue Scale before and after the simulation. The results showed that the real stimulation on the left side of the anode/right side of the cathode and the real stimulation on the right side of the anode/left side of the cathode significantly reduced craving compared to sham stimulation (Boggio et al., 2008). Alcohol craving was markedly decreased after tDCS to the left DLPFC, but was not influenced by tDCS to the right frontal gyrus, a region related to response inhibition, measured by the implicit association test (den Uyl et al., 2015). Klauss et al. conducted a study using 2 mA of stimulation in cocaine dependence with positive results (Klauss et al., 2018). The mechanism underlying the modulation is yet unclear, with few electrophysiological studies suggesting that tDCS modulate the activity or connectivity between the DLPFC and other prefrontal areas (Conti et al., 2014; da Silva et al., 2013; Nakamura-Palacios et al., 2012; Shahbabaie et al., 2018). A recent study investigated the combined effects of tDCS acting on the DLPFC and computerized cognitive addiction treatment (CCAT) on cue-induced craving and cognitive functioning in female patients living with methamphetamine use disorder. The investigators recruited 75 patients and randomly assigned them into three groups: a CCAT + tDCS group, a CCAT + sham tDCS group, and a control group. The first two groups underwent 20 sessions of cognitive training combined with 1.5 mA active/sham tDCS (20 min per session, five sessions per week) on the DLPFC and the control group underwent usual care. Cue-induced craving and cognitive function were tested at baseline, at week 2, and at the end of week 4. The results showed that CCAT + tDCS group significantly reduced cue-induced craving after 4 weeks of intervention. At the end of week 4, craving scores were significantly lower in the real CCAT + tDCS + group than in the CCAT + sham CCAT group and the control group. Compared to baseline, a significant improvement in the accuracy of the two back task was observed only in the CCAT + tDCS group at the end of week 4. Surprisingly, participants who received CCAT + active or sham tDCS did change their discounting, while participants in the control group showed more impulsivity over time. The study found a potential benefit of tDCS over DLPFC combined with CCAT to improve treatment outcomes in methamphetamine use disorder patients (Xu et al., 2021). In addition, a double-blind sham control study showed that tDCS on DLPFC had some effect on patients with cocaine use disorder over an extended treatment period (Gaudreault et al., 2021).
With dense connectivity to DLPFC, the fronto-parieto-temporal junction region demonstrated its usefulness in regulating smoking-related behavior and cue-induced heroin craving (Meng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016). (Table 1)
Table 1:
Studies | n | Participants | Design | Number of sessions | Stimulation site | Polarity | Current (mA) | Effects | Side effects | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DLPFC as the stimulation site | ||||||||||
Fregi et al. (2008) | 24 | Smokers: >15 cigarettes per day; 1.5 h abstinence |
Randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover study | 3 (1 anodal left; 1 anodal right; 1 sham) | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 2 | Reduction of cue-induced craving after both active tDCS conditions; no effect on mood changes | Scalp burning, headache, itching, no difference between groups | 10–20 EEG system |
Xu et al. (2013) | 24 | Smokers: >15 cigarettes per day; 1.5 h abstinence |
Single-blind, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1 S) | Left DLPFC | A/S | 2 | No effect on cue-induced nicotine smoking following active tDCS; no effect on attention; mood improvement | Tingling, scalp burning, sleepiness | 10–20 EEG system |
Boggio et al. (2009) | 27 | Smokers: > 10 cigarettes per day; 1.5 h abstinence | Randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover study | 5 | Left DLPFC | A/S | 2 | Reduction of cue-provoked craving and cigarette consumption | Scalp burning, headache, itching; no difference between groups | 10–20 EEG system |
Fecteau et al. (2014) | 12 | Light, moderate and heavy smokers | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 5 | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 2 | Reduction in number of cigarettes smokers lasting up to 4 days following active stimulation. No effect on risk task. Effect on Ultimatum task, rejection of cigarettes as an offer | Sleepiness, headache, pain | 10–20 EEG system |
Nakamura-Palacios et al. (2012) | 49 | Alcohol-dependent: detoxified; treatment-seekers; 7 days abstinence | Randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1 S) while participants were exposed to visual cues | Left DLPFC | A/S | 1 | No effect on frontal activity as indexed by P3 in response to auditory alcohol related stimuli, except that in Lesch IV alcoholics showing increasing P3 amplitude after real tDCS | Itching and tingling reported for both sham and real stimulation | 10–20 EEG system |
Boggio et al. (2008) | 13 | Alcohol-dependent: detoxified; treatment seekers; >10 days abstinence | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over study | 3 (1 anodal left/cathodal right; 1 anodal right/cathodal left; 1 sham) | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 2 | Reduction of craving by both active tDCS conditions | Discomfort, headache | 10–20 EEG system |
da Silva et al. (2013) | 13 | Alcohol-dependent: detoxified; in treatment; >10 days abstinence; in routine clinical treatment | Randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled study | 5 (1/week) | Left DLPFC | A/S | 2 | No effects of real stimulation on relapse rate; reduction in craving for alcohol and in POMS depression score | NS | 10–20 EEG system |
den Uyl et al. (2015) | 41 | Heavy drinkers | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 3 (1 DLPFC; 1 IFG; 1 sham) | Left DLPF and IFG | A/S | 1 | Reduction of inclination toward drinking by real DLPFC stimulation. No effect of IFG stimulation. No effect of real stimulation on alcohol-related attentional biases | None | 10–20 EEG system |
Conti et al. (2014) | 13 | Crack-cocaine: average of 30 days of abstinence | Randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled study | 5 | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 2 | Inhibitory effect on P3 drug-cued cortical activation by a single dose of active tDCS; increase after 5 sessions | Itching and tingling reported for both sham and real tDCS | 10–20 EEG system |
Gaudreault et al. (2021) | 17 | Cocaine inpatients | Randomized double-blind sham-controlled | 2 (1 right anodal/left cathodal; 1 sham) | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 2 | Reduction in craving induced by real stimulation | Tingling, burning, itching, and the experience of fatigue | 10–20 EEG system |
Shahbabaie et al. (2014) | 32 | Methamphetamine-dependent; abstinent | Randomized, double-blind, crossover sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1 S) at rest and during cue-inducing task | Right DLPFC | A/S | 2 | Reduction in spontaneous craving after 10 min stimulation induced by real stimulation; increase in cue-induced craving by real stimulation | Drowsiness, tingling, itching | 10–20 EEG system |
Shahbabaie et al. (2018) | 15 | Methamphetamine-dependent | Double-blind, sham-controlled crossover study | 2 (1 anodal right/cathodal left; 1 sham) | Left and right DLPFC | A/S | 2 | Reduction in craving induced by real stimulation | NS | 10–20 EEG system |
Xu et al. (2021) | 75 | Methamphetamine-dependent; abstinent | Randomized, single-blind, sham controlled study | 3 (1 CCAT + anodal right/cathodal left; 1 CCAT + sham;1 control) | Left and right DLPFC | A/C/S | 1.5 | Reduction in cue-induced craving and improvement in accuracy of two back tasks of real stimulation | Tingling and itching | 10–20 EEG system |
Other stimulation sites | ||||||||||
Wang et al. (2016) | 20 | Heroin-dependent; in treatment; 1.5–2 years abstinence | Randomized, single-blind, sham controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1 S) | FPT | C/S | 1.5 | Significant difference between pre- and poststimulation cue-induced craving score following real stimulation | None | 10–20 EEG system |
Meng et al. (2014) | 30 | Smokers: >8 cigarettes per day | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 3 (2 Ac and 1 S) | FPT | C/S | 1 | Bilateral cathodal stimulation of the FPT areas significantly reduced the attention to smoking-related cues and daily cigarette consumption on the following day | Tingling, itching, pain | 10–20 EEG system |
A = anodal; Ac = active; C = cathodal; FPT = fronto-parietal-temporal areas; IFG = inferior frontal gyrus; NS = not specified; POMS = Profile of Mood States; S = sham.
rTMS of the DLPFC as a treatment for addiction
rTMS has been approved by FDA for depression treatment, and is being clinically tested for an arsenal of psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Two pioneering experiments uncovering the relationship between rTMS and subjective craving or consumption were first performed on smokers: HF rTMS of the left DLPFC significantly reduced cigarette smoking and significantly decreased nicotine craving (Eichhammer et al., 2003). Such an effect has been further confirmed by several other studies: for example, smokers exposed to smoking-related pictures followed a HF rTMS of the DLPFC remarkably reduced nicotine consumption or nicotinic craving (Amiaz et al., 2009). Recent studies have further shown that HF rTMS of the left DLPFC remarkably reduces heroin/cocaine/methamphetamine cue-induced craving in long-term addicts (Liang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2016; Su et al., 2017; Terraneo et al., 2016). However, other research has failed to observe any effects of rTMS of DLPFC on alcohol craving or intake in alcohol-dependent participants (Del Felice et al., 2016; Höppner et al., 2011).
Most clinical rTMS studies related to substance use disorders use HF rTMS. HF rTMS is designed to increase the activity of frontal neural circuits, and the withdrawal phase of substance use disorders is marked by hypoactivity of frontal neural circuits, which is accociated with a weakening of executive control networks and a reduction in dopaminergic transmission. In clinical studies, HF rTMS acting on DLPFC has a cue-induced craving-reducing effect. Most studies adopt long-term stimulation (e.g. 20 stimulation sessions, once a day), and some studies use single sessions. Single sessions often produce inconsistent results. One study reported a significant reduction in craving in methamphetamine dependent individuals after a single session of stimulation using 10 Hz for both left and right DLPFC, while there was no change in the control condition (Liu et al., 2017). Simultaneously, a small sample of cocaine-dependent individuals undergoing a single session of the right DLPFC stimulation showed a decrease in craving, whereas stimulation of the left DLPFC showed no change (Camprodon et al., 2007). Another sham-controlled study found that a single session of 10 Hz rTMS acting on the left DLPFC significantly reduced craving in patients with methamphetamine substance use disorder (Su et al., 2017). HF rTMS applied to multiple sessions may have better and more reliable treatment outcomes for substance use disorders than single sessions. A meta-analysis examining single and multiple sessions of neuromodulation across all substance use disorder domains found that multiple sessions of neuromodulation were more effective in reducing craving compared to single sessions (Song et al., 2019). In fact, it has been shown that after the first treatment, there was no change in craving, while after five HF rTMS sessions there was a significant reduction in craving, whereas the sham group did not show the same effect (Su et al., 2017). In addition to reducing craving, studies have shown that long-term HF rTMS can improve several aspects of withdrawal symptoms, anxiety and depression scores, sleep quality, and cognition in patients with methamphetamine or heroin substance use disorder (Liang et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2019; Su et al., 2017). HF rTMS acting on the left DLPFC also reduced cue-evoked craving in patients with long-term heroin use disorder in a randomized, pseudo-stimulation-controlled crossover study in which researchers assessed participants’ cue-evoked craving at baseline, after the first day of treatment, and at the end of the fifth day of treatment. After the first treatment and after the fifth day of treatment, heroin use disorder patients showed a significant decrease in craving in both the first and fifth day of treatment (Shen et al., 2016). Thus, long-term rTMS may have an improving effect on many aspects for patients who live with substance use disorder, possibly due to altered frontal cortex plasticity. The iTBS is becoming increasingly popular in rTMS treatment, especially for treatment of major depression, due to its shorter stimulation time and higher efficiency compared to the traditional HF 10-Hz protocol (Blumberger et al., 2018). There have been no studies setting up the sham group iTBS to treat substance use disorders. A recent preliminary study using iTBS or 15-Hz intervention in patients with cocaine use disorder for 4 weeks and a twice-daily iTBS stimulation protocol in the first week found no significant differences in the treatment effects of the two treatment protocols on cocaine craving and usage amount. However, due to the lack of a sham group in this study, although there was a significant decrease in craving and usage amount in both treatment groups at 25 days posttreatment, the effect of time or a placebo effect could not be excluded (Sanna et al., 2019). This suggests that iTBS is as effective as 15 Hz in reducing cocaine craving and intake. Thus, the advantage of iTBS over 15 Hz is that the stimulation time is shorter and less intense, which makes iTBS more acceptable and tolerable for the patient, and more cost-effective for the clinician (Oberman et al., 2011). Another study found that a protocol of three daily iTBS interventions for 2 weeks significantly reduced cocaine intake as well as nicotine, alcohol, and tetrahydrocannabinol (Steele et al., 2019). Therefore, these studies provide preliminary evidence that iTBS is an effective and feasible treatment for patients with frequent cocaine use disorder.
The effects of low-frequency rTMS of the left DLPFC have not been adequately studied and are controversial. A single-blind, sham controlled crossover study, which recruited nontreatment-seeking methamphetamine users, found that 1 Hz rTMS intervention with left DLPFC increased cue-induced craving in the experimental group, but not in healthy controls, compared to the sham group (Li et al., 2013). In contrast, in a parallel, active control stimulation study with five 1-Hz rTMS stimulations on either the left or right DLPFC, cue-induced craving was significantly lower in patients with methamphetamine use disorder after both the first and the last stimulations compared to baseline at the time of treatment (Liu et al., 2017). The reason for the different results in these two studies may be that the participants in the former study were patients who were still using methamphetamine, and the participants in the latter were in rehab and had stopped using drugs in the past 2 months. Moreover, animal studies have shown that the accumulation of AMPA receptors is different at different stages of substance use disorders (Scheyer et al., 2016). In a recent double-blind, sham study, which recruited patients with methamphetamine use disorder, it was found that the 1 Hz rTMS intervention left DLPFC not only reduced cue-induced craving in the experimental group compared to the sham group, but also improved inhibitory control and reduced impulsivity in the experimental group (Yuan et al., 2020), and it is worth noting that the participants in this study were also in a drug rehabilitation facility. Similar to iTBS, cTBS (In the continuous theta burst stimulation paradigm (cTBS), a 40 s train of uninterrupted TBS is given (600 pulses)) is a shorter stimulation time protocol and has a stronger inhibitory effect on the cerebral cortex than 1 Hz (Huang et al., 2005). A preliminary sham-controlled study found that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) results showed a reduction activity in the insula, middle temporal gyrus, thalamus, and caudate nucleus regions after cTBS stimulation of mPFC in patients with chronic cocaine use disorder compared to the sham group, but the study showed no significant reduction in craving (Hanlon et al., 2015). In a larger, sham-controlled follow-up study, cTBS add-on the left mPFC-reduced activity in the striatum, ACC, and the parietal cortex, these regions associated with salience processing (ACC), attention/executive control (parietal cortex), and craving (striatum) in long-term cocaine dependents (Seeley et al., 2007). However, compared to the sham group, cTBS, while altering changes in brain activity, did not significantly alter cravings in patients with cocaine use disorder (Hanlon et al., 2017). In a follow-up study, a recent study added a cue response task before and after receiving a real or sham-stimulus to assess the state-dependent effects of rTMS. During the stimulation, participants were asked to think and describe the time of their last cocaine use, rather than simply resting. Compared to neutral cues, drug-related cues significantly increased functional connectivity in the mPFC, striatum, and areas associated with salience for cocaine users at baseline levels. Compared with the sham group, participants in the experimental group receiving cTBS had diminished frontal connectivity for drug-neutral cues, although there was no significant interaction with any regions of interest in the task, suggesting a general effect of cTBS on all brain regions (Kearney-Ramos et al., 2018). More recently, studies have also found that both HF and low-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC are effective in reducing craving in people with heroin and methamphetamine use disorders, and the efficacy can be maintained for more than 60 days (Liu et al., 2020a; Liu et al., 2020b).
Besides many investigations of rTMS made on the left DLPFC, a small amount of rTMS have been conducted involving the right hemisphere; for example, one study observed that only the right DLPFC stimulation reduced the cocaine craving (Camprodon et al., 2007), and the craving score reduced significantly in patients receiving stimulation to either the right or the left side rTMS (Liu et al., 2017; Mishra, Praharaj et al., 2015). DLPFC connected brain regions could act as potential targets for TMS. A 10-Hz rTMS of the superior frontal gyrus, a brain region correlated with craving, induced elevated craving to a smoking cue but a reduced craving to a neutral cue (Rose et al., 2011). Although a great number of studies confirm that the craving is reduced in the addicts receiving rTMS compared with the sham controls, future studies are required to elucidate whether rTMS has a stable and persistent effect on improved craving (Table 2).
Table 2:
Studies | n | Participants | Design | Number of sessions | Stimulation site | Frequency (Hz) | Percentage MT (%) | Total pulses per session | Effects | Side effects | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DLPFC as the stimulation site | |||||||||||
Eichhammer et al. (2003) | 14 | Nicotine dependent; motivated to quit smoking | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover study | 4 (2 Ac; 2 S) | Left DLPFC | 20 | 90 | 1000 | Significant reduction in smoking in the rTMS group. No effect on craving | Mild headaches | 5 cm |
Amiaz et al. (2009) | 48 | Nicotine dependent; >20 cigarettes/day; motivated to quit smoking | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study (active vs. sham rTMS/smoking-related vs. neutral) 10 daily sessions followed by a 4-week maintenance phase | 10 daily sessions | Left DLPFC | 10 | 100 | 1000 | Significant reduction in cue-induced craving, cigarette smoking and dependence when participants received exposure to smoking cues followed by rTMS | NS | 5 cm |
Mishra et al. (2015) | 20 | Alcohol-dependent | Randomized, double-blind study | 10 daily sessions | Left and right DLPFC | 10 | 110 | 1000 | Significant reduction in craving after the last rTMS session in both group | Nightmare and middle insomnia after the eighth session of one patient | NS |
Del Felice et al. (2016) | 17 | Alcohol dependence | Randomized, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1S) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 100 | 1000 | Significant improving inhibitory control task and selective attention and reduce depressive symptoms but not reduction in craving and alcohol intake | NS | 10–20 EEG system |
Camprodon et al. (2007) | 6 | Cocaine dependence | Randomized, cross-over study | 2 (left or right side) | Left and right DLPFC | 10 | 90 | 2000 | Right but not left rTMS reduced craving | None | NS |
Terraneo et al. (2016) | 32 | Cocaine dependence | Randomized, open-label study | 2 (left or control) | Left DLPFC | 15 | 100 | 2400 | Reduction in craving by active rTMS | Mild scalp discomfort | MRI |
Sanna et al. (2019) | 25/22 | Cocaine use disorder | NS | 2 (2 Ac) | Bilateral PFC | iTBS/15 | 80/100 | 2400 and 600 | Reduction in craving and the intake of cocaine in both groups | Mild scalp discomfort | NS |
Steele et al. (2019) | 19 | Cocaine use disorder | Open-label | 1 (1 Ac) | Left DLPFC | iTBS | 100 | 600 | Reduction both the amount and frequency of cocaine use | Occasional headaches | 10–20 EEG system |
Li et al. (2013) | 10 | Not-treatment seeking, methamphetamine users | Randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled, crossover study | 2 (1 Ac and 1S) | Left DLPFC | 1 | NS | 900 | Increase in craving by active rTMS | Mild scalp discomfort | 6 cm |
Su et al. (2017) | 30 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1S) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 80 | 1200 | No negative effects on cognitive function; reduction in craving for methamphetamine | Mild scalp discomfort | 5 cm |
Liu et al. (2017) | 50 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled study | 5 (4 Ac and 1S) | Left and right DLPFC, P3 | 1 and 10 | 80 | 600 and 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | None | NS |
Liang et al. (2018) | 48 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac and 1S) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 80 | 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | Mild scalp discomfort | NS |
Lin et al. (2019) | 105 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study | 3 (1 Ac, 1S and 1 C) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 100 | 2000 | Improved sleep quality, alleviated depression and anxiety state by active rTMS | Mild dizziness or scalp pain | 10–20 EEG system |
Liu et al. (2019) | 90 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, single-blind study | 2 (1 Ac; 1 C) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 100 | 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | NS | 5 cm |
Yuan et al. (2020) | 73 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, single-blind study | 2 (1 Ac; 1S) | Left DLPFC | 1 | 100 | 600 | Reduction in cue-induced craving and improvement of impulse inhibition by active rTMS | NS | 5 cm |
Liu et al. (2020b) | 188 | Methamphetamine dependence | Randomized, single-blind study | 3 (1 Ac; 1S; 1 C) | Left DLPFC | 1 and 10 | 100 | 600 and 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | NS | 10–20 EEG system |
Shen et al. (2016) | 20 | Heroin dependence | Randomized, crossover, sham-controlled study | 2 (1 Ac; 1S) | Left DLPFC | 10 | 100 | 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | None | 10–20 EEG system |
Liu et al. (2020a) | 118 | Heroin dependence | Randomized, single-blind study | 3 (1 Ac; 1S; 1 C) | Left DLPFC | 1 and 10 | 100 | 600 and 2000 | Reduction in cue-induced craving by active rTMS | Mild dizziness, headache, neck pain, insomnia, etc. | 10–20 EEG system |
Other stimulation sites | |||||||||||
Ross et al. (2011) | 15 | Smokers: > 20 cigarettes per day | Randomized, cross-over open-label study. At the beginning of each session, participants smoked a cigarette. 1 h later, they underwent rTMS concurrently during exposure to neutral/smoking cues/smoking a cigarette | 3 (1 Hz SFG; 10 Hz SFG; 1 Hz motor cortex) | SFG or motor cortex (side not specified) | 1 and 10 | 90 | Greater number of pulses for the 10 Hz condition | Combination of smoking cues exposure and 10 HZ SFG rTMS increased craving | NS | 10–20 EEG system |
Ac = active; S = sham; C = control; MT = motor threshold; NS = not specified; SFG = superior frontal gyrus.
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
In terms of addiction treatment, tDCS and rTMS are the two most commonly used noninvasive physical therapy methods. Both methods have the advantages of noninvasive and painless, and both can be combined with electroencephalogram (EEG), functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and other technical means for efficacy evaluation, and are therefore popular among researchers and physicians. These are widely used in psychology and clinical applications. However, there are also many differences between them. In comparison, tDCS is inexpensive and usually chooses DLPFC for anode or cathode electrical stimulation, for example, in one study, when electrodes were placed on the DLPFC (left side of the anode/right side of the cathode and the right side of the anode/left side of the cathode), alcohol addicts in the real stimulation group had significantly lower craving compared with the sham stimulation (Boggio et al., 2008). In studies related to addiction, researchers have located the DLPFC, which is located in the prefrontal cortex and is related to many functions. Previous studies have not clarified the direct link between this location and its effectiveness in improving addiction. Further research is needed to determine the validity of this location. While TMS is expensive and has different treatment targets depending on the purpose of treatment, researchers usually choose HF rTMS over the left DLPFC for addiction rehabilitation treatment.
In summary, in the studies related to addiction, researchers have largely localized this to the DLPFC, which is located in the prefrontal lobe and is associated with numerous functions. Previous studies indicate that HF rTMS of the left DLPFC and low-frequency rTMS over the right DLPFC may reduce cue-induced craving for methamphetamine (Liu et al., 2020b; Zhang et al., 2019). Different studies have confirmed the stimulation of this site benefits a decrease in craving, can overcome emotional problems, and promotes cognitive and executive functions due to substance addiction. For instance, recent studies expanded TMS targets for depression treatment to the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, frontopolar cortex, and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (Downar and Daskalakis, 2013). These stimulation sites are potentially effective for treating addiction as well.
The following problems should be taken into consideration in future studies: (i) on which brain regions does NIBS achieve the optimal anti-craving effect? (ii) Although NIBS on DLPFC causes clinical effects, the underlying mechanisms are largely unknown, e.g. whether the effects are obtained by strengthening the left hemisphere or reducing the right hemisphere, or are they a summation of both? (iii) It would be interesting to combine NIBS on DLPFC with behavioral therapy in future management.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank their departments for support.
Contributor Information
Qingming Liu, Center for Brain, Mind and Education, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000, China; School of Teacher Education, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000, China.
Tifei Yuan, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 210109, China; Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu 226019, China.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Amiaz R, Levy D, Vainiger Det al. (2009) Repeated high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cigarette craving and consumption. Addiction. 104:653–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blumberger DM, Vila-Rodriguez F, Thorpe KEet al. (2018) Effectiveness of theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression (THREE-D): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet North Am Ed. 391:1683–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boggio PS, Liguori P, Sultani Net al. (2009) Cumulative priming effects of cortical stimulation on smoking cue-induced craving. Neurosci Lett. 463:82–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boggio PS, Sultani N, Fecteau Set al. (2008) Prefrontal cortex modulation using transcranial DC stimulation reduces alcohol craving: a double-blind, sham-controlled study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 92:55–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Camprodon JA, Martínez-Raga J, Alonso-Alonso Met al. (2007) One session of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the right prefrontal cortex transiently reduces cocaine craving. Drug Alcohol Depend. 86:91–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Conti CL, Moscon JA, Fregni Fet al. (2014) Cognitive related electrophysiological changes induced by non-invasive cortical electrical stimulation in crack-cocaine addiction. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 17:1465–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- da Silva MC, Conti CL, Klauss Jet al. (2013) Behavioral effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induced dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity in alcohol dependence. J Physiol Paris. 107:493–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Del Felice A, Bellamoli E, Formaggio Eet al. (2016) Neurophysiological, psychological and behavioural correlates of rTMS treatment in alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 158:147–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- den Uyl TE, Gladwin TE, Wiers RW (2015) Transcranial direct current stimulation, implicit alcohol associations and craving. Biol Psychol. 105:37–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Downar J, Daskalakis ZJ (2013) New targets for rTMS in depression: a review of convergent evidence. Brain Stimulation. 6:231–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eichhammer P, Johann M, Kharraz Aet al. (2003) High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation decreases cigarette smoking. J Clin Psychiatry. 64:951–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fecteau S, Agosta S, Hone-Blanchet Aet al. (2014) Modulation of smoking and decision-making behaviors with transcranial direct current stimulation in tobacco smokers: a preliminary study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 140:78–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fregni F, Liguori P, Fecteau Set al. (2008) Cortical stimulation of the prefrontal cortex with transcranial direct current stimulation reduces cue-provoked smoking craving: a randomized, sham-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 69:32–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG (2006) Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 117:845–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gaudreault PO, Sharma A, Datta Aet al. (2021) A double-blind sham-controlled phase 1 clinical trial of tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in cocaine inpatients: craving, sleepiness, and contemplation to change. Eur J Neurosci. 53:3212–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- George MS, Aston-Jones G (2010) Noninvasive techniques for probing neurocircuitry and treating illness: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Neuropsychopharmacology. 35:301–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND (2011) Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. 12:652–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hallett M (2007) Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron. 55:187–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanlon CA, Dowdle LT, Austelle CWet al. (2015) What goes up, can come down: novel brain stimulation paradigms may attenuate craving and craving-related neural circuitry in substance dependent individuals. Brain Res. 1628:199–209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanlon CA, Dowdle LT, Correia Bet al. (2017) Left frontal pole theta burst stimulation decreases orbitofrontal and insula activity in cocaine users and alcohol users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 178:310–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Höppner J, Broese T, Wendler Let al. (2011) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of alcohol dependence. World J Biol Psych. 12:57–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hou H, Wang C, Jia Set al. (2014) Brain dopaminergic system changes in drug addiction: a review of positron emission tomography findings. Neurosci Bull. 30:765–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang YZ, Edwards MJ, Rounis Eet al. (2005) Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuron. 45:201–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jansen JM, Daams JG, Koeter MWet al. (2013) Effects of non-invasive neurostimulation on craving: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 37:2472–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kearney-Ramos TE, Dowdle LT, Lench DHet al. (2018) Transdiagnostic effects of ventromedial prefrontal cortex transcranial magnetic stimulation on cue reactivity. Biol Psychiatry: Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 3:599–609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Klauss J, Anders QS, Felippe LVet al. (2018) Lack of effects of extended sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on craving and relapses in crack-cocaine users. Front Pharmacol. 9:1198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li X, Malcolm RJ, Huebner Ket al. (2013) Low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex transiently increases cue-induced craving for methamphetamine: a preliminary study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 133:641–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liang Y, Wang L, Yuan TF (2018) Targeting withdrawal symptoms in men addicted to methamphetamine with transcranial magnetic stimulation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 75:1199–201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lin J, Liu X, Li Het al. (2019) Chronic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on sleeping quality and mood status in drug dependent male inpatients during abstinence. Sleep Med. 58:7–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu Q, Shen Y, Cao Xet al. (2017) Either at left or right, both high and low frequency rTMS of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases cue induced craving for methamphetamine. Am J Addict. 26:776–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu T, Li Y, Shen Yet al. (2019) Gender does not matter: add-on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for female methamphetamine dependents. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 92:70–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu X, Zhao X, Liu Tet al. (2020a) The effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cue-induced craving in male patients with heroin use disorder. EBioMedicine, 56:102809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu X, Zhao X, Shen Yet al. (2020b) The effects of DLPFC-targeted repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on craving in male methamphetamine patients. Clin Transl Med. 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luigjes J, Segrave R, de Joode Net al. (2019) fficacy of invasive and non-invasive brain modulation interventions for addiction. Neuropsychol Rev. 29:116–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meng Z, Liu C, Yu Cet al. (2014) Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates smoking behavior. J Psychiatr Res. 54:19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mishra BR, Praharaj SK, Katshu MZUHet al. (2015) Comparison of anticraving efficacy of right and left repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in alcohol dependence: a randomized double-blind study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 27:e54–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nakamura-Palacios EM, de Almeida Benevides MC, da Penha Zago-Gomes Met al. (2012) Auditory event-related potentials (P3) and cognitive changes induced by frontal direct current stimulation in alcoholics according to Lesch alcoholism typology. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 15:601–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nitsche MA, Doemkes S, Karakose Tet al. (2007) Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol. 97:3109–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2001) Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 57:1899–901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oberman L, Edwards D, Eldaief Met al. (2011) Safety of theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review of the literature. J Clin Neurophysiol. 28:67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rose JE, McClernon FJ, Froeliger Bet al. (2011) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the superior frontal gyrus modulates craving for cigarettes. Biol Psychiatry. 70:794–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sanna A, Fattore L, Badas Pet al. (2019) Intermittent theta burst stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in cocaine use disorder: a pilot study. Front Neurosci. 13:765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scheyer AF, Loweth JA, Christian DTet al. (2016) AMPA receptor plasticity in accumbens core contributes to incubation of methamphetamine craving. Biol Psychiatry. 80:661–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Seeley WW, Menon V, Schatzberg AFet al. (2007) Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci. 27:2349–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shahbabaie A, Ebrahimpoor M, Hariri Aet al. (2018) Transcranial DC stimulation modifies functional connectivity of large-scale brain networks in abstinent methamphetamine users. Brain Behav. 8:e00922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shahbabaie A, Golesorkhi M, Zamanian Bet al. (2014) State dependent effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on methamphetamine craving. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 17:1591–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shen Y, Cao X, Tan Tet al. (2016) 10-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces heroin cue craving in long-term addicts. Biol Psychiatry. 80:e13–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Song S, Zilverstand A, Gui Wet al. (2019) Effects of single-session versus multi-session non-invasive brain stimulation on craving and consumption in individuals with drug addiction, eating disorders or obesity: a meta-analysis. Brain Stim. 12:606–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spagnolo PA, Goldman D (2017) Neuromodulation interventions for addictive disorders: challenges, promise, and roadmap for future research. Brain. 140:1183–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Steele V, Maxwell A, Ross Tet al. (2019) Preliminary evidence for accelerated intermittent theta-burst stimulation as a treatment for cocaine use disorder. Brain Stimulation. 12:574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Su H, Zhong N, Gan Het al. (2017) High frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for methamphetamine use disorders: a randomised clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 175:84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Terraneo A, Leggio L, Saladini Met al. (2016) Transcranial magnetic stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cocaine use: a pilot study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 26:37–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Volkow ND, Baler RD (2014) Addiction science: uncovering neurobiological complexity. Neuropharmacology. 76:235–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang Y, Shen Y, Cao Xet al. (2016) Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates cue-induced craving for heroin. J Psychiatr Res. 79:1–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xu J, Fregni F, Brody ALet al. (2013) Transcranial direct current stimulation reduces negative affect but not cigarette craving in overnight abstinent smokers. Front Psych. 4:112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xu X, Ding X, Chen Let al. (2021) The transcranial direct current stimulation over prefrontal cortex combined with the cognitive training reduced the cue-induced craving in female individuals with methamphetamine use disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Psychiatr Res. 134:102–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yuan J, Liu W, Liang Qet al. (2020) Effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on impulse inhibition in abstinent patients with methamphetamine addiction: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. 3:e200910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang JJ, Fong KN, Ouyang RGet al. (2019) Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on craving and substance consumption in patients with substance dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 114:2137–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]