Table 3.
Summary of studies assessing craving with TMS and tES in psychostimulant use disorder.
| Author, year | Subjects (N) | Experimental Design | NIBS parameters | Targeted regions | Abstinence Level | Craving measures | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camprodon et al., 2007 | Detoxified cocaine users (6) | Crossover | rTMS 1 session 10 Hz 90% RMTT 2000 pulses |
L DLPFC R DLPFC |
Abstinent | 15 items VAS | Craving: Reduced cocaine craving when comparing ratings before and after rTMS to the R DLPFC. No effect on cocaine cravings when comparing ratings before and after rTMS to the L DLPFC. |
| Politi et al., 2008 | Detoxified cocaine users (36) | – | rTMS 10 sessions 15Hz 100% RMT 600 pulses |
L DLPFC | Abstinent | Clinical evaluation of psychopathologic symptoms of craving | Craving: Reduced cocaine craving gradually along the course of stimulation protocol. |
| Li et al., 2013 | Non-treatment seeking METH-dependent users (10) | Single-blind, Sham-controlled, Crossover, Control group | rTMS 1 session 15 min 1 Hz 100% MT 900 pulses |
L DLPFC | Abstinent | 1-item VAS with 0 being “not craving at all” and 10 being “the most craving I’ve ever had”, Before and after drug cues |
Cue-provoked craving: active to sham rTMS compared induced cravings in METH-users. |
| Shahbabaie et al., 2014 | METH-dependent patients (30) | Double-blind, Sham-controlled, Crossover | tES 2 mA 20 min |
Anodal R DLPFC coupled with cathodal L supraorbital area | 1-week abstinent | 1-itemVAS on subjective craving | Cue-provoked craving: active tDCS decreased cravings at rest but increased cravings when administered during exposure to drug cues. |
| Conti et al., 2014 | Crack-cocaine users (13) | Single-blind, Sham-controlled, Parallel | tES 5 sessions 20 min 2 mA |
Anodal R DLPFC coupled with cathodal L DLPFC | Abstinent (minimum of 31days) | Brief Cocaine Craving Questionnaire 7 items Before and after drug cues |
Cue-provoked craving: no change |