Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 8;17(12):e0277408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277408

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: Study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial

Laurie Zawertailo 1,2,3,*, Helena Zhang 1,2, Noreen Rahmani 1,2, Tarek K Rajji 3,4, Peter Selby 1,3,4,5,6
Editor: Kabirullah Lutfy7
PMCID: PMC9731486  PMID: 36480510

Abstract

Background

Smoking is a chronic and relapsing disease, with up to 60% of quitters relapsing within the first year. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), targets cortical circuits and acutely reduces craving and withdrawal symptoms among cigarette smokers. However, the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to standard smoking cessation treatments has not been studied. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation. We hypothesize that active tDCS combined with varenicline will improve cessation outcomes compared to sham tDCS combined with varenicline.

Methods

This is a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial where fifty healthy smokers will be recruited in Toronto, Canada. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to either active tDCS (20 minutes at 2 mA) or sham tDCS (30 seconds at 2 mA, 19 minutes at 0 mA) for 10 daily sessions (2 weeks) plus 5 follow up sessions, occurring every two weeks for 10 weeks. All participants will be given standard varenicline treatment concurrently for the 12-week treatment period. The primary outcome is 30 day continuous abstinence at end of treatment, confirmed with urinary cotinine. Measurements made at each study visit include expired carbon monoxide, self-reported craving and withdrawal. Three magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans will be conducted: two at baseline and one at end of treatment, to assess any functional or structural changes following treatment.

Discussion

For every two smokers who quit, one life is saved from a tobacco-related mortality. Therefore, it is important to develop new and more effective treatment approaches that can improve and maintain long-term abstinence, in order to decrease the prevalence of tobacco-related deaths and disease. Furthermore, the addition of longitudinal neuroimaging can shed light on neural circuitry changes that might occur as a result of brain stimulation, furthering our understanding of tDCS in addiction treatment.

Trial registration

This trial has been registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03841292 since February 15th 2019 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03841292)–retrospectively registered.

1. Background

Tobacco addiction is a chronic and relapsing condition, and one in five adults in North America continue to smoke despite knowing long-term harms [1]. While current first-line medications, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline, are moderately effective for cessation, relapse to smoking especially within the first six months of quitting is still the main barrier to full recovery [2]. Varenicline, an α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, is currently the most effective pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation with up to 50% abstinence by end of 12 weeks of treatment in clinical trials [3]. However, similar to other pharmacotherapies, successful long-term abstinence of varenicline is low, with approximately 40% relapsing by one year follow-up [4, 5].

Thus, there is still a great need and demand for new treatment options to increase successful quit attempts and decrease relapse. One of the main contributors to high relapse rates is succumbing to cravings elicited by environmental cues [6]. This vulnerability to relapse has been thought to be associated with long-term neuroadaptations that result from chronic cigarette smoking [6]. Neuroadaptation occurs with repeated chronic drug use, and often results in tolerance and dependence to the drug of choice. For smokers, neuroadaptation is also associated with desensitization of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, sustaining nicotine dependence [7]. Under nicotine withdrawal, deficits in neuroplasticity have been implicated as the mechanism underlying the inability to decouple environmental cues and craving [8, 9].

Given the implication of neuroplasticity in substance use disorders, many emerging techniques have begun targeting neuroadaptations as a potential approach to treatment. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, is emerging as a potential treatment for a variety of conditions such as schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, depression, [1012] and addiction [13]. tDCS involves brief (10–20 min) application of weak electric current to the scalp [14] that increases the excitability of neurons under the anode. The procedure has been shown to be safe, convenient, fast-acting and with a well-established and dependable placebo manipulation (‘sham’ tDCS) [15]. tDCS has also been shown to modulate synaptic plasticity in human laboratory models of addictive motivation [16, 17].

While the mechanism of action of tDCS is not fully understood, one of the known mechanisms of tDCS is its ability to modify neuronal membrane polarity. Specifically, anodal tDCS decreases the threshold for action potential generation, by increasing the membrane permeability to extracellular cations such as Na+, Ca2+ and K+ [18, 19]. This modulation occurs mostly through the α4β2 and α7 ligand-gated nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which are involved in neuroplasticity and modulation of cortical excitability [18, 19]. In lab-based experimental studies, tDCS decreases craving for cigarettes when the anode is placed over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) [20, 21]. The DLPFC is implicated in neuroadaptations, controlling cravings and rewards related to smoking [22]. It is hypothesized that this increase in cortical excitability, specifically in the DLPFC, is the mechanism by which craving and cigarette consumption is decreased [23]. Since, varenicline and tDCS both act on α4β2 and α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, using them in combination as a smoking cessation treatment could improve cessation outcomes above varenicline monotherapy.

Additionally, previous literature has shown an effect of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques on motor cortex excitability, indicating neural activity of these areas are also involved in the control of behavior. For example, a previous study demonstrated that when repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), another non-invasive technique, was given over the right motor cortex (1 session), increased corticospinal excitability was seen during observation of happy and fearful emotional faces, compared to neutral ones [24]. The involvement of the motor cortex is especially interesting, seeing as emerging evidence has highlighted the importance of the motor circuitry in chronic nicotine use [25], specifically that chronic nicotine use is characterized by hyper-excitability of corticospinal output (a white matter tract that extends into the motor cortex). This increased excitability is speculated to be a secondary adaption to long-term nicotine use [25]. Additionally, previous literature has shown that tongue muscle motor-evoked potential (MEP) are sensitive to the neural processes that are activated during nicotine craving, suggesting a possible link between the corticobulbar pathway and reward pathways in smokers [26]. Collectively, these brain stimulation studies identified the relationship abnormal motor cortical excitability and nicotine dependence.

The mechanism of action of tDCS is still not fully understood. However, preclinical models have identified the ability of tDCS to affect polarization of neuronal membranes and glutamatergic plasticity [27, 28]. These effects involve spontaneous neuronal activity and can affect regional plasticity effects on cerebral networks. TDCS was shown to have effects on neural spiking and membrane potentials over a range of currents administered to rodents. Stochastic and rhythm resonance are the most plausible neural mechanisms by which weak modulation of an electric field affects neural information coding [29]. These modulations would manifest from small changes in spike predictability and timing, and could exert an effect of cognition via influence on neural population coding [29].

TDCS also affects long-term potentiation (LTP), another the mechanism that is implicated in the effects of tDCS on modulating brain function [30, 31]. Animal studies of nicotine dependence have shown the longer effect of direct current stimulation affecting LTP and that this effect was dependent on N-methyl D-aspartate and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). More recent studies have shown that tDCS can also modulate presynaptic mechanisms of neuron signal transmission [32]. TDCS also has been shown to exert beneficial effects on neural plasticity and motor function in rodent models of stroke injuries, suggesting both neural and functional modulation potential [33]. Additionally, cigarette smokers have been shown to have increased brain activation in regions involved in cough sensory processing and cough suppression (such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and midbrain nucleus cuneiformis) [34]. Previous literature also suggests that DLPFC tDCS stimulation may result in downstream effects such as subcortical dopamine release in other regions such as caudate nucleus [35], contributing to greater involvement of critical brain structures in reward and cognitive control. This suggests that tDCS can modulate deeper brain structures, contributing to its efficacy on reducing craving and smoking intake behaviors [34, 36].

To date, only one previous RCT has been conducted that compared bupropion (another first-line medication for smoking cessation) to tDCS stimulation as a treatment for smoking cessation [37]. In this sham-controlled randomized trial, 170 participants were recruited and randomized to receiving: A) 300 mg of bupropion over 12 weeks, B) 20 sessions of tDCS over 4 weeks, C) sham tDCS for 4 weeks, D) 20 sessions of tDCS over 12 weeks or E) sham tDCS over 12 weeks. End of treatment quit rates of participants using 300mg of bupropion was comparable to participants that received 20 sessions of left anodal tDCS (at 2 mA) over 12 weeks (20% versus 25.7% respectively). This was the first RCT to report therapeutic effects of tDCS on smoking cessation outcomes compared to a first-line pharmacotherapy [37], but did not combine pharmacotherapy with tDCS. Most studies to date have only examined the effects of tDCS on craving, motivation to smoke and smoking behavior measured in a laboratory setting rather than as a therapeutic intervention in treatment-seeking smokers.

Considering these gaps in literature, the primary objective of the study is to provide preliminary evidence of the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to 12 weeks of varenicline treatment for smoking cessation in a double-blind sham-controlled RCT. The secondary objective is to examine the neurobiological adaptations that may occur as a result of this treatment combination using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We hypothesize that compared to sham tDCS plus varenicline, active tDCS to the left DLPFC in combination with varenicline treatment will increase both short and long-term quit rates and decrease relapse rates at end of treatment.

The relationship between smoking cue exposure and craving is often explored through cue reactivity paradigms in clinical neuroimaging studies [38]. In response to smoking-related cues, smokers have been shown to exhibit increased activation in regions involved in reward, craving emotions and memory, and visuospatial attention [39], suggesting increased attention to stimuli of heightened attentional salience. One study found that hyper-activation in some of these regions and decreased connectivity with cognitive control networks predicted “slips” in abstinence [6]. Behavioral and non-nicotinic pharmacological smoking interventions can normalize these brain responses relative to non-smoking controls [40, 41]. Thus, we hypothesize that active tDCS plus varenicline will reduce functional brain activation (measured by blood oxygenation level) to visual smoking cues.

We will also be conducting exploratory analysis on resting state functional connectivity, structural brain and diffusion tensor imaging data acquired during the MRI scans. Chronic cigarette smoking has been associated with various structural brain differences in areas such as the insula, prefrontal cortex and thalamus [42]. Resting state functional connectivity (rsFC) is a measure of blood oxygenation fluctuations between different brain regions during absence of task performance [43]. RsFC has been shown to be altered by chronic nicotine use in various brain areas in the mesolimbic system [44]. Lastly, using diffusion tensor imaging, a technique that measures structural white matter connectivity between brain regions, differences have been shown in white-matter connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens, corpus callosum and habenula in smokers compared to non-smokers [45]. We plan to explore, by a combination of functional and structural data, longitudinal activation patterns in response to active tDCS versus sham.

2. Methods

2.1 Study design overview

This study will be a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized controlled trial. A CONSORT diagram of the study and a schematic of study flow can be seen in Figs 1 and 2 respectively. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to active tDCS or sham tDCS. Prior to any treatment, participants will undergo two MRI scans, within 5 working days of each other. One scan will be conducted following overnight (at least 10-hours) smoking abstinence and the second baseline scan will be conducted within 1–2 hours of smoking a cigarette (satiated condition). During each scan, participants will be asked to complete a smoking cue-reactivity task, in which they will be shown a series of smoking-related, and content-matched neutral images. Once the baseline MRI scans are complete, participants will start the study treatment of 12 weeks of varenicline treatment, with concurrent tDCS stimulation sessions. On the same day that participants start taking varenicline, they will commence with 10 daily tDCS sessions over 2 weeks (Monday-Friday) followed by ‘booster’ session once every two weeks for the remainder of the 12-week course of varenicline. At the end of treatment, participants will undergo another MRI scan under nicotine abstinence. Participants will return for a 6-month follow-up visit to assess their smoking status.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of proposed study.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Schedule of enrolment interventions and assessments.

Fig 2

*Baseline MRI Scans will be counterbalanced such that participants will be undergoing an abstinence scan and a satiated scan within one week of each other. ** Daily tDCS stimulation over the first 2 weeks. List of abbreviations: MRI = functional magnetic resonance imaging; Eot = end of treatment; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire–validated self-completed measure of depressive symptoms mapped on to DSM-IV criteria; QSU-brief = 10-item Questionnaire of Smoking Urges; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; FTND = Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence; EIS = Eysenck Impulsivity Inventory; SSS = Sensation Seeking Scale; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; State Trait = State Trait Anxiety; POMS = Profile of Mood States.; BOLD = Blood oxygen level dependent signal, functional MRI measure of blood flow; Abs = MRI scan conducted following overnight nicotine abstinence (of at least 10 hours); Sat = MRI scan conducted following nicotine satiety (within 1–2 hours of smoking a cigarette).

2.2 Study setting

The study will be conducted in the Nicotine Dependence Clinic within the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a tertiary care academic psychiatric hospital, fully affiliated with the University of Toronto, in downtown Toronto, Canada.

2.3 Participant recruitment

Participants will be recruited via online advertisements (Kijiji, Google Adwords Express and CAMH research registry), by word of mouth and poster bulletin boards within the community around the Greater Toronto Area.

2.4 Participants

Study participants will be fifty treatment-seeking daily dependent smokers.

2.4.1 Ethics

This protocol was approved by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Research Ethics Board (REB) under the protocol number 044–2016. Initial approval was obtained on November 14th 2016, the latest amendment was approved on March 6th 2018 with the version number 3.0. If any future amendments arise, all relevant parties will be notified.

2.5 Eligibility criteria

Eligible participants will be daily smokers between the ages of 19 to 65, smoking at least 8 cigarettes per day, treatment-seeking and willing to attend the required clinic appointments. Participants will be excluded if they: have any current DSM-IV Axis Diagnosis, except caffeine, gambling and phobias (assessed by M.I.N.I. SCID); current use of psychoactive drugs or medications; current use of other nicotine containing products (patches, electronic cigarettes, etc.); history of seizures or epilepsy; and/or life time history of concussions or head trauma. Additionally, according to standard protocols for tDCS clinical trials, participants will also be excluded if they: are pregnant or planning to become pregnant; have pacemakers or implanted electrical devices such as cochlear implants; have metal embedded in the skull; or have skin lesions, open wounds, bruising, or similar injuries at either of the stimulation sites.

Participants will also be excluded if they had contraindications to MRI, such as claustrophobia, a weight of more than 350 lbs, and previous experience working with grinding metal without protective eye equipment. Participants that have had a previous adverse reaction to varenicline will also be deemed ineligible for the study. When in treatment, participants will not be allowed to use any form of nicotine replacement product, e-cigarettes or drugs of abuse (including cannabis). Alcohol use was allowed in the study, as long as participants did not have an alcohol use disorder (assessed by the M.I.N.I. and AUDIT) and that their alcohol intake conforms with low-risk alcohol use guidelines (for men: <15 standardized drinks/week and for women: <10 standardized drinks/week) [46]. Participants reporting use of other nicotine products will be asked to stop, and if they cannot, they will be excluded from the trial. Participants will also be required to attend a physician visit, during which all risks and potential adverse events will be discussed with the Qualified Investigator (PS). The QI will also assess for potential risks for varenicline use, based on participants’ concomitant medication and general health.

2.6 Prescreening

Interested participants will be screened by telephone. Potentially eligible participants will be invited for a baseline assessment visit for an in-person informed consent discussion and to confirm eligibility.

2.7 Baseline assessment

After signing an informed consent form (S2 Appendix), the baseline assessment will involve completion of a battery of questionnaires and the M.I.N.I. SCID for DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis. Baseline demographics of age, ethnicity, income, education, and smoking patterns will be collected for all participants prior to the start of treatment. Additionally, the following self-reports will be administered electronically, based on previous studies correlating these measures to substance use initiation and maintenance: the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence [47], Questionnaire on Smoking Urges (QSU) [48], Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [49], Profile of Moods (POMS), Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) [50], Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [51] and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Please see the SPIRIT checklist (S1 Appendix) for all of the assessment and visit procedures.

2.8 Interventions

2.8.1 Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

The tDCS device used for simulation (SmartStim Model 1000; Nuraleve, Inc., Sudbury ON) is a battery-operated machine with a maximum 4 mA capacity (Nuraleve.com). TDCS will be applied via cutaneous anodal and cathodal electrodes– 35cm2 and 100cm2, respectively. Each electrode will consist of conductive carbon enclosed in a 0.9% NaCl saline-soaked sponge connected to lead wires attached to the tDCS device. An elasticized cap will hold the electrodes in place. The electrode configuration will be left DLPFC anodal tDCS following the standard montage successfully demonstrated in a number of tDCS addiction studies [16, 17, 20]. The anode and cathode will be applied to the F3 and F4 regions, respectively, as defined by the standard International EEG 10–20 system [52]. The tDCS machine will have software that is pre-programmed to randomize participants remotely, and provide stimulation without disclosing whether the session is active or sham. Thus, both participants and researchers will remain blinded throughout the study.

2.8.1.1 Electric field simulation of tDCS montage. To calculate the estimated electrical field received for each participant, the SimNibs pipeline will be used, established by the Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRCMR) and the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) [53]. To prepare the data for the stimulation, headreco was used to construct a tetrahedral head mesh from the T1 and T2 weighted structural MRI images [54].

Settings of the SimNibs for the anode electrode will be: 2.00 mA; F3 position (in subject space, calculated from head reconstruction); 3.5 by 5.2 cm electrode size (rectangle) with sponge and saline selected as the conductive (sponge = 5cm by 6 cm). For the cathode electrode, the settings will be: -2.00 mA, F4 position (in subject space), 12 by 7.6 cm electrode (rectangle) with sponge and saline selected as the conductive (sponge = 12.5 cm by 9.5 cm). An example of an estimated electric field calculation for a test participant is shown in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Estimated electrical field for tDCS stimulation (using SimNIBs).

Fig 3

After the simulation is complete, the maximum electrical field (NormE) will be calculated for each participant. To calculate the electric field for the left DLPFC and right DLPFC respectively, MNI coordinates will be used to extract values from the mesh tetrahedron centers that was computed from the simulation. This will be completed using a custom MATLAB script, which is available on the SimNibs database. Lastly, the total electric field received during treatment for each participant will be calculated by multiplying the electric field of the left DLPFC by total number of tDCS sessions attended (max = 15). Electric fields will be compared between quitters versus non-quitters (amongst treatment completers), using two sample student’s t-tests.

2.8.1.2 Daily tDCS Sessions (week 1 to 2). Each stimulation session will be 20 minutes long, conforming to parameters of a recent 5-session study on cigarette craving [16] and numerous other studies with clinical (depressed, substance dependence) and healthy participants [55]. Active treatment will consist of a current ramp up over 30 seconds to minimize discomfort, followed by 2 mA stimulation over 19 minutes and subsequent ramp down over the final 30 seconds. Sham treatment will include a 30-second ramp up and ramp down at the beginning of the session, 19 minutes of no stimulation and 30 second ramp up and down. The addition of the ramp up and ramp down in the sham treatment is to conceal the type of stimulation being received and maintain blinding to study condition, since tingling is commonly felt at the onset and termination. During each visit, participants’ mood, smoking behavior, craving and withdrawal will be assessed and documented. Participants’ quit status (if applicable at the time) will also be confirmed with expired carbon monoxide and urinary cotinine during these visits.

2.8.1.3 Booster TDCS sessions (weeks 3 to 12). After completing the ten daily stimulations, participants will return every two weeks for a booster session of tDCS (for a total of 5 boosters). The events of these stimulation sessions will be the same as daily sessions.

2.8.2 Pharmacological treatment (weeks 1 through 12)

At the first tDCS session, all participants will start varenicline treatment for the duration of the 12 week treatment period. Varenicline, as per standard protocol, will be prescribed with dose escalation: days 1 to 3, 0.5 mg once daily; days 4 to 7, 0.5 mg twice daily; days 8 to end of treatment, 1 mg twice daily. Medication will be used concurrently with tDCS sessions for a total of 12 weeks. Dose adjustments due to adverse events will be allowed (i.e. decrease to 0.5 mg twice daily). The target quit date for smoking cessation will be on the last day of the two weeks of daily tDCS, which corresponds to the recommended quit date after starting varenicline treatment. Participants will not be allowed to use any other nicotine products and psychoactive drugs during the treatment period. Participants will be asked to return their empty medication blister packs to assess for and encourage compliance. Any remaining pills will be recorded and then sent to CAMH Research Pharmacy to be destroyed.

2.8.3 Cognitive behavioural reading material (weeks 1 through 12)

During each tDCS stimulation session, participants will be required to read self-help materials on cognitive behavioural strategies for smoking cessation, relapse prevention, and mood management. The material chosen originated from two cognitive behavioral therapy books: Quitting Smoking for Dummies [56] and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Dummies [57]. The readings for each day of stimulation will be standardized for all participants. The readings cover a wide array of areas such as how to deal with craving, recognizing craving, ways to maintain abstinence and healthy lifestyle habits. After each stimulation session, participants will be asked to fill in a brief questionnaire on their thoughts on the readings provided that session and what parts or changes they could incorporate into their daily routines. These readings will also serve the purpose of keeping participants attentive and engaged during each stimulation session.

2.9 Management of Adverse Events (AE) and Serious Adverse Events (SAE)

Participants will be asked at each study visit if they experience any adverse events (AE) from a list of the most prevalent side effects for tDCS and varenicline (S4 Appendix). If endorsed, participants will be asked to rate the side effect from mild to severe. The most commonly reported side effect of tDCS in a previously conducted trial are a mild tingling sensation (70.6%), moderate fatigue (35.3%), and a light itching sensation under the stimulation electrodes during stimulation (30.4%) [15]. After the session, the most common side effects were headache (11.8%), nausea (2.9%) and insomnia (0.98%). Overall, 17.7% of the volunteers experienced tDCS as mildly unpleasant. On the other hand, the most common side effects of varenicline are nausea, abnormal dreams, constipation, flatulence and vomiting in 30%, 13%, 8%, 6% and 5% of users, respectively [5, 58]. It is not known whether combining the two treatments will increase either the incidence or the severity of AEs, especially those that are common between the two treatments such as nausea and headache. If a participant experiences an adverse event that requires hospitalization or results in lasting harm or death (severe adverse event; SAE) and can reasonably be attributed to tDCS stimulation, the trial will be immediately suspended. AEs that can be expected based on the known profile of tDCS side effects will be managed by the Qualified Investigator (PS). Depending on the severity of the unexpected adverse event, the Qualified Investigator will decide if the trial should be suspended. All serious adverse events (SAE), adverse events (AEs) and unintentional adverse events (UAEs) will be reported to the CAMH Research Ethics Board. The emergency contact for reporting SAEs is the Qualified Investigator (PS).

2.10 Participant follow-up and retention

Participants will return to the clinic 3 months post end of treatment for a follow up visit, during which data will be collected regarding their craving, cigarette consumption and time to relapse (if applicable). Participants will also complete the same baseline behavioral assessments (PANAS, QSU, etc.) during the follow-up. Participant retention will be encouraged through phone or email reminders of their upcoming appointments. Participants will also be compensated for their time during study participation as follows: 1) $ 70–80 CAD for each MRI scan, 2) $20 CAD + travel reimbursement ($6.50 for public transit) for each tDCS session and 3) $50 CAD for completion of the 6 month follow up visit. No additional data will be collected from participants who choose to drop out of the trial. Participants who lose contact, or miss more than 3 consecutive booster appointments will be considered drop-outs. To manage probable drop-outs, participants will be regularly contacted via email and phone of their upcoming appointments. Study staff will also be readily available to accommodate participant availabilities and/or changes to appointment schedules. Study staff will also be engaging in regular appointments to create a supportive and safe environment for participants. Lastly, varenicline will be dispensed at two time points (baseline and at 4 weeks follow up) to encourage treatment retention within the first month.

2.10.1 Recruitment to date

To date, 38 participants have been assessed for eligibility, of which 28 were deemed eligible (Fig 1). Of the 28 eligible participants, 26 participants successfully completed both baseline MRI scans and 18 participants were successfully randomized to either active or sham tDCS (and received at least one session of tDCS). Since the researchers are still blinded to the study conditions, we are unable to report how many participants are in each arm.

2.11 Neuroimaging

MRI scans will occur on 3 separate occasions: 1) at baseline following 10 hours of smoking abstinence (2) at baseline within 1–2 hours of smoking a cigarette and 3) at the end of the 12 week treatment. Baseline scans will occur within 1 week of each other and the order of satiated and abstinent scans will be counterbalanced to control for possible order effects. During each scan, we will measure functional activation while participants perform a smoking cue reactivity task (see cognitive tasks section), as well as structural data. During this task, participants will view smoking and neutral visual cues in a block design (each block = 20 seconds). A craving question will also be asked at the end of each cue block for 5 seconds (i.e. “how much do you want to smoke a cigarette right now”). The purpose of this of this question was two-fold: 1) to capture immediate nicotine craving that might be induced after each cue block presentation, and 2) to capture any delays in potential BOLD neural activity following cue presentation. Previous literature has shown peak BOLD response occurs 4 seconds after onset of a stimulus [59] and typically ends within 20 seconds [60, 61]. Thus, this question ensures that any potential delayed BOLD responses will be adequately captured after each block.

Lastly, each MRI scan will be preceded by an assessment of self-reported craving Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) [48]. Breathalyzer tests and urine will be collected prior to scans to confirm abstinence from alcohol and other drugs of abuse.

2.11.1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) acquisition parameters

MRI will take place at the CAMH Research Imaging Centre with a GE Discovery MR750 3T Scanner (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). Scans will be conducted using echo-planar imaging sequences (TE = 2650, 49 slices, whole brain, 3 mm isotropic voxels) and with a 32-channel head-coil for the smoking cue reactivity task (functional scan). Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) will also be conducted with 30 directions. For structural scan acquisitions, T1 sequencing will be conducted with 0.9mm isotropic voxels. Resting state functional connectivity will be conducted using EPI sequences (TE = 2250, 42 slices, whole brain, 3.5 mm isotropic voxels).

2.11.2 Smoking cue reactivity paradigm

The design for the cue reactivity task can be seen in Fig 4, where participants will be presented with a series of smoking-related and neutral photographic cues, adopted from the Geneva Smoking Pictures Series [62]. Smoking cues will include photographs of people smoking and smoking-related objects (i.e. packs of cigarettes, ashtrays, etc.). Neutral cues will consist of neutral themed pictures selected not to elicit strong emotional responses, such as neutral faces, flowers, or furniture. Neutral cues will be matched as closely as possible to smoking cues by color, depth, and positions. Visual cues will be presented in a block design, with 5 pictures per block, lasting a total of 20s. There will be 6 blocks each of neutral and smoking cues, presented in a random order, and all pictures presented within each block will be randomized. Each picture block will be interspersed with a rest fixation cross block lasting 10s. Between each block, participants will be asked how much they crave cigarettes on a scale of 1–4, with 4 being the highest craving.

Fig 4. Design for smoking cue reactivity task paradigm (MRI task).

Fig 4

During each MRI scan, participants will be presented images for approximately 7 minutes whilst being asked regarding their cigarette craving in between the blocks. The smoking block will consist of pictures related to smoking whilst the neutral block will have neutral images. Each block will last for 35 seconds for a total of 6 blocks. Blood oxygen level signal will be measured during this task. *Photos were taken from the Geneva Smoking Pictures (Khazaal et al. 2012).

2.12 Outcome measures

2.12.1 Primary outcome

The primary outcome measure of interest will be self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking during weeks 8–12 and confirmed using expired CO and urinary cotinine using a semi-quantitative dipstick (Rapid Response urinary cotinine stick) (S3 Appendix).

2.12.2 Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcome measures of interest will be the following:

  1. Time to relapse, measured in weeks (if applicable) during the treatment period.

  2. Self-reported continuous abstinence at week 26 confirmed with expired CO and urinary cotinine using a semi-quantitative dipstick.

  3. Change in Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) activation in response to smoking cues.

  4. Explanatory outcome: comparing the structural brain (T1 and diffusion tensor imaging) and resting state functional connectivity between active and sham tDCS at end of treatment.

2.13 Sample size and power calculation

If we assume a 40% abstinence rate at end of treatment in the varenicline plus sham tDCS group, the abstinence rate in the active tDCS group would need to be double that or 80% in order to see a statistically significant difference with n = 25 per arm, p <0.05, and 80% power. Since this is a proof-of-concept study, for the treatment part of the study, the main purpose of the study will be to establish an effect size for tDCS as an adjunct to standard varenicline treatment. This is independent of the number of participants but allows us to estimate the N that would be required to achieve statistical significance depending on the effect size we observe. The effect size measure we will use will be the partial n2 generated by SPSS. For the MRI portion of the study, 15 to 25 participants per group is typical in the neuroimaging field and is sufficient to detect significant within- and between-group differences in brain activity [63].

2.14 Randomization

Eligible participants will be randomized (1:1) to receiving active or sham tDCS treatment in blocks of 10. At baseline, the order of MRI scans will be counterbalanced, in which participants will be randomized in blocks of 10 to receiving the nicotine satiated scan first or the nicotine abstinent scan first.

2.15 Blinding

Both researchers and participants will be blinded to tDCS intervention. The tDCS device can program the type and duration of stimulation remotely so that the participant and all study staff will remain blinded to which group the participant is randomized to. The allocation sequence will be assigned and then administered by this software. The blind will be broken after the study has been completed. Participants will also be asked at end of treatment which treatment arm they think they were randomized to. To evaluate the effectiveness of the blind, we will investigate if participants were able to guess, better than chance, which stimulation they received.

2.16 Data collection

Baseline and follow up data will be collected using an electronic data collection platform (REDCap system) and urine samples will be collected for drug screening and confirmation of smoking abstinence (cotinine confirmed; S3 Appendix). Once enrolled in the study, participants will be assigned a unique identifier associated with their record with no other personal identifiers in order to maintain privacy. No personal health information will be stored on the electronic data platform.

2.17 Data management

Data will be entered by each participant as they complete a survey on an electronic data collection system. Data collected during the study will be stored on a secure network, which only research personnel can access. After participants enter their data, research assistants will check over the survey for missing items or duplicate entries. To improve data quality, the electronic surveys will also be designed to flag inappropriate values and ensure all values entered are in the correct metrics (minutes, days, years, etc.). For example, if participants indicate they smoke 300 cigarettes per day, the entry will be marked red and participants will not be able to submit their survey.

2.18 Data analysis

2.18.1 Clinical data

Intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted for the primary outcome, in which all participants who were successfully randomized and received at least one session of tDCS will be included. Participants that are lost to follow up during treatment will be considered non-quitter. The primary outcome of continuous abstinence (%) at end of treatment (12 weeks) will be compared between the active group versus the sham group using chi-square tests of independence. Binary logistic regression analysis will also be conducted with quit at end of treatment as the outcome variable and treatment condition (active or sham), as well as baseline variables as predictors. For example, cigarette consumption and dependence (FTND) will also be included as predictors in all binary regression models, to account for potential differences in addiction severity between the groups. For secondary outcomes, time to relapse (weeks or days if applicable) will be compared between the active versus the sham group using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis for repeated measures. Similar to the primary outcomes, proportion of participants abstinent at 26 weeks follow up will be compared between active and sham tDCS using chi-square tests of independence and binary logistic regression with the same independent predictors.

2.18.2 Neuroimaging data

Brain imaging measures will be compared between treatment groups and across time points, using analysis of variance. MRI measures will also be related to subjective responses (i.e., baseline scores and changes in craving, mood, and withdrawal) using linear regression. fMRI data will be analyzed by fitting a general linear model (GLM) to the data time-series at every voxel across the brain (and/or within ROIs) and assessing effects using F/t-tests and percent BOLD signal change calculations using cluster-wise inference [64]. Paired t-tests will then be conducted to test for BOLD signal changes between active versus the sham group at end of treatment. Partial least squares (PLS) analysis will also be conducted to compare distributed BOLD signal differences across space and time in various brain regions in response to smoking cues versus neutral cues [65]. Latent variables derived from PLS will be compared between the active group versus the sham group at end of treatment. Resting state functional connectivity data will be analyzed using independence component analysis (ICA) for within-subject comparisons. Group differences between the active versus the sham group will be analyzed using tensorial independent component analysis, another form of a generalized linear model. For diffusion tensor imaging data, tract based spatial statistics will be used to compared fractional anisotropy differences between active versus sham and between quitters versus non-quitters respectively at end of treatment [66]. Lastly, structural brain data will be analyzed using FAST [67], enabling the comparisons of quantitative volumes of white matter, grey matter and cerebrospinal fluid respectively. Two sample student t-tests will be used to compare volumes of the above brain matters between active versus sham group at end of treatment.

3. Discussion

This study will be the first to investigate the effectiveness of adjunct tDCS treatment to varenicline for smoking cessation in treatment seeking smokers. Two previous studies have investigated the use of single-dose varenicline in conjunction with one session of tDCS in smokers and healthy controls to evaluate changes in cortical excitability in the human motor cortex [18, 19]. A 2018 review has also suggested that concurrent pharmacotherapy may impact the effect of tDCS on tissue excitability, especially when these medications influence neurotransmitter systems such as dopamine and serotonin [68].

However, this will be the first randomized clinical trial using the combination of tDCS with varenicline as a smoking cessation intervention for treatment seeking smokers. The proposed combination treatment has the potential to significantly increase efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation, decreasing disease burden and improving health outcomes for millions of smokers. TDCS is an easy, noninvasive and portable procedure and therefore, would be a convenient adjunct therapy to include in future smoking cessation interventions. The study is also a multi-modal imaging RCT, combining neuroimaging and clinical outcomes to give a more comprehensive picture on the mechanism of action of tDCS and mediated neural correlates that might be involved in varenicline treatment and smoking cessation.

Only a few studies have examined the effect of varenicline treatment on smoking cue reactivity. One study investigated the neural correlates of participants after taking 13 days of varenicline [69], and another study scanned participants after only 3 weeks of varenicline treatment [41]. There have been three previously conducted neuroimaging studies that investigated the effect of the full 12 week treatment of varenicline, but all three studies investigated baseline functional activation of a brain region or resting state functional connectivity [7072]. This will be the first study that conducts a post-treatment scan, in a multi-modal manner, including both functional and structural data. Additionally, incorporation of longitudinal neuroimaging techniques to an intervention is scarcely done in the smoking literature and would add invaluable knowledge on both functional and structural brain correlates that could aid in identifying potential neural biomarkers of nicotine addiction or predictors of treatment outcome.

In light of the recent COVID19 pandemic, for future online or remote studies involving tDCS, utilization of commercially available home kits could offer new research opportunities and more potential participants. This home-based technique can be completed by participants with limited supervision, as seen by its use in other studies [7375]. Similar to nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline can also be delivered in a remote setting via pharmacy or courier for future considerations [76].

3.1 Stimulation of the prefrontal cortex

The role of executive function deficits on addiction has been well-established in previous literature [22], making it a promising target for treatment potential using non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. Stimulation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is potentially linked to a plethora of neural correlates. This is because the PFC plays important and diverse roles in the assessment of rewards (both drug and non-drug) and the formation of reward-associated memories. The PFC can also retain reward information processing, and thus can be rapidly integrated with and update other somatosensory information, guiding behavior [77]. The PFC may also be an important contributor to the manifestation of goals, assignment of values to goals and the ability to select proper actions based on their value [77]. To respond to motivational salience and reward expectation, the PFC acts as a supervisor to other functions and may be down regulated in addiction [78].

Overall, the entire structure and all the sub-structures within the PFC contribute to the initiation of drug-seeking behaviors [79]. Previous research has also shown that cigarette smoking selectively impairs the prefrontal lobe [78], making it a desirable area to target in smoking cessation therapeutics. For example, lesions in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) has been associated with poorer executive function, specifically, in acquisition of new learning outcomes and not just in reversal of previously learned behaviors [80]. Overall, the disruption of the prefrontal cortex function has been associated with behavioral disruptions such as value attribution, reward and anticipation [81].

3.2 Limitations

Firstly, due to COVID-19 disruptions, the final sample size may be smaller than planned initially. Secondly, the current study will not have a placebo varenicline group, and thus, it is not possible to tease out the effect of the contribution of varenicline vs tDCS in this design. That being said, there are also distinct advantages of using the current design. For example, a previous critical review of trials comparing NIBs and pharmacotherapy concluded that the main advantage of a NIBs and pharmacotherapy trial is in allowing assessment of comparisons and combination effects of NIBs and pharmacotherapy, favoring these designs in future trials [82]. Although this is out of the scope of the current study, future studies can address this by inclusion of placebo varenicline groups (in a 2 by 2 factorial design), or by inclusion of other pharmacotherapies as adjunct therapies (i.e. bupropion or NRT with tDCS).

3.3 Future directions

The utility of brain stimulation adjunct therapies can be explored in many ways. Firstly, tDCS should be combined with other pharmacotherapy adjunct groups (bupropion and NRT). This will elucidate if the potential efficacy of the adjunct therapy is unique to varenicline, or if other pharmacotherapies can also benefit from the addition of tDCS. Other tDCS parameters can be explored in future studies to find the “sweet-spot” in terms of number of daily sessions, frequency of study visits, length of each stimulation and etc. This data would be important to inform future policy makers of an effective but also pragmatic treatment design. Additionally, instead of cognitive behavioral readings, it may be more beneficial to include in-person or virtual cognitive behavioral therapy in future designs to further equip participants with strategies and support to aid in their quit.

4. Conclusion

The risk of developing smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases decreases exponentially with duration of abstinence. As such, even a small improvement in the efficacy of intervention strategies can have a substantial population level effect, thereby decreasing the incidence of smoking and smoking-related diseases. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has the potential to target underlying aberrant addiction neural circuitry; while varenicline has been shown to mediate smoking cessation via similar effects on the reward pathway. Combining the two interventions could result in improved cessation rates than either monotherapy, providing smokers with a more effective treatment option. Thus, findings from this novel adjunct tDCS and varenicline therapy will be clinically important, potentially decreasing the burden of smoking-related diseases.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. SPIRIT checklist.

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. Informed consent.

Copy of the informed consent form.

(PDF)

S3 Appendix. Biological specimens.

Details of biological specimen collection and the tests used for cotinine and drugs abuse.

(PDF)

S4 Appendix. Adverse events of tDCS and varenicline.

Participants will complete the adverse event list at each study appointment. The list consists of the most common side effects of varenicline and tDCS respectively. Participants can indicate the severity by mild, moderate or severe.

(PDF)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Data Availability

The article does not report data, and the data availability policy is not applicable.

Funding Statement

This research is funded by Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND), a peer-reviewed research grant competition funded by Pfizer Inc (Zawertailo (GRAND2012) WS2391913).

References

  • 1.Statistics-Canada. Current smoking trends. Report 2011.
  • 2.Bold KW, Rasheed AS, McCarthy DE, Jackson TC, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Rates and predictors of renewed quitting after relapse during a one-year follow-up among primary care patients. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(1):128–40. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9627-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gonzales D, Rennard SI, Nides M, Oncken C, Azoulay S, Billing CB, et al. Varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;296(1):47–55. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.1.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ebbert JO, Croghan IT, Sood A, Schroeder DR, Hays JT, Hurt RD. Varenicline and bupropion sustained-release combination therapy for smoking cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(3):234–9. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntn031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jorenby DE, Hays JT, Rigotti NA, Azoulay S, Watsky EJ, Williams KE, et al. Efficacy of varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs placebo or sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;296(1):56–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.1.56 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Janes AC, Pizzagalli DA, Richardt S, de BFB, Chuzi S, Pachas G, et al. Brain reactivity to smoking cues prior to smoking cessation predicts ability to maintain tobacco abstinence. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67(8):722–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.12.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Benowitz NL. Neurobiology of nicotine addiction: implications for smoking cessation treatment. Am J Med. 2008;121(4 Suppl 1):S3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fraser PE, Rosen AC. Transcranial direct current stimulation and behavioral models of smoking addiction. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:79. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grundey J, Thirugnanasambandam N, Kaminsky K, Drees A, Skwirba AC, Lang N, et al. Neuroplasticity in cigarette smokers is altered under withdrawal and partially restituted by nicotine exposition. J Neurosci. 2012;32(12):4156–62. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3660-11.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Andrade C. Transcranial direct current stimulation for refractory auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(11):e1054–8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.13f08826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dell’Osso B, Dobrea C, Arici C, Benatti B, Ferrucci R, Vergari M, et al. Augmentative transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in poor responder depressed patients: a follow-up study. CNS Spectr. 2014;19(4):347–54. doi: 10.1017/S1092852913000497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ferrucci R, Vergari M, Cogiamanian F, Bocci T, Ciocca M, Tomasini E, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for fatigue in multiple sclerosis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(1):121–7. doi: 10.3233/NRE-131019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ekhtiari H, Tavakoli H, Addolorato G, Baeken C, Bonci A, Campanella S, et al. Transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation (tES and TMS) for addiction medicine: A consensus paper on the present state of the science and the road ahead. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;104:118–40. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rachid F. Neurostimulation techniques in the treatment of nicotine dependence: A review. Am J Addict. 2016;25(6):436–51. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Poreisz C, Boros K, Antal A, Paulus W. Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Res Bull. 2007;72(4–6):208–14. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boggio PS, Rigonatti SP, Ribeiro RB, Myczkowski ML, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the efficacy of cortical direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008;11(2):249–54. doi: 10.1017/S1461145707007833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boggio PS, Rocha RR, da Silva MT, Fregni F. Differential modulatory effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on a facial expression go-no-go task in males and females. Neurosci Lett. 2008;447(2–3):101–5. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Batsikadze G, Paulus W, Grundey J, Kuo MF, Nitsche MA. Effect of the Nicotinic alpha4beta2-receptor Partial Agonist Varenicline on Non-invasive Brain Stimulation-Induced Neuroplasticity in the Human Motor Cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(9):3249–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Batsikadze G, Paulus W, Hasan A, Grundey J, Kuo MF, Nitsche MA. Compromised neuroplasticity in cigarette smokers under nicotine withdrawal is restituted by the nicotinic alpha4beta2-receptor partial agonist varenicline. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fregni F, Liguori P, Fecteau S, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, Boggio PS. Cortical stimulation of the prefrontal cortex with transcranial direct current stimulation reduces cue-provoked smoking craving: a randomized, sham-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(1):32–40. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v69n0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Addiction. 2001;96(1):103–14. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9611038.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12(11):652–69. doi: 10.1038/nrn3119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Meng Z, Liu C, Yu C, Ma Y. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates smoking behavior. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;54:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Borgomaneri S, Vitale F, Battaglia S, Avenanti A. Early Right Motor Cortex Response to Happy and Fearful Facial Expressions: A TMS Motor-Evoked Potential Study. Brain Sci. 2021;11(9). doi: 10.3390/brainsci11091203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khedr EM, Tony AA, Abdelwarith A, Safwat M. Effect of chronic nicotine consumption on motor cortical excitability: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neurophysiol Clin. 2020;50(1):33–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2019.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vicario CM, Komeilipoor N, Cesari P, Rafal RD, Nitsche MA. Enhanced corticobulbar excitability in chronic smokers during visual exposure to cigarette smoking cues. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2014;39(4):232–8. doi: 10.1503/jpn.130086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bikson M, Inoue M, Akiyama H, Deans JK, Fox JE, Miyakawa H, et al. Effects of uniform extracellular DC electric fields on excitability in rat hippocampal slices in vitro. J Physiol. 2004;557(Pt 1):175–90. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.055772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Purpura DP, McMurtry JG. Intracellular Activities and Evoked Potential Changes during Polarization of Motor Cortex. J Neurophysiol. 1965;28:166–85. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.1.166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McDonnell MD, Abbott D. What is stochastic resonance? Definitions, misconceptions, debates, and its relevance to biology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(5):e1000348. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu A, Voroslakos M, Kronberg G, Henin S, Krause MR, Huang Y, et al. Immediate neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5092. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07233-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reato D, Rahman A, Bikson M, Parra LC. Low-intensity electrical stimulation affects network dynamics by modulating population rate and spike timing. J Neurosci. 2010;30(45):15067–79. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2059-10.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boudewyn M, Roberts BM, Mizrak E, Ranganath C, Carter CS. Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) enhances behavioral and EEG markers of proactive control. Cogn Neurosci. 2019;10(2):57–65. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2018.1551869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thair H, Holloway AL, Newport R, Smith AD. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Beginner’s Guide for Design and Implementation. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:641. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ando A, Mazzone SB, Farrell MJ. Altered neural activity in brain cough suppression networks in cigarette smokers. Eur Respir J. 2019;54(3). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00362-2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schlaepfer TE, Lancaster E, Heidbreder R, Strain EC, Kosel M, Fisch HU, et al. Decreased frontal white-matter volume in chronic substance abuse. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006;9(2):147–53. doi: 10.1017/S1461145705005705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.To WT, Eroh J, Hart J Jr., Vanneste S. Exploring the effects of anodal and cathodal high definition transcranial direct current stimulation targeting the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):4454. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22730-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ghorbani Behnam S, Mousavi SA, Emamian MH. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation compared to standard bupropion for the treatment of tobacco dependence: A randomized sham-controlled trial. Eur Psychiatry. 2019;60:41–8. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2019.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.McClernon FJ, Gilbert DG. Human functional neuroimaging in nicotine and tobacco research: basics, background, and beyond. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(6):941–59. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331337394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Due DL, Huettel SA, Hall WG, Rubin DC. Activation in mesolimbic and visuospatial neural circuits elicited by smoking cues: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(6):954–60. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Culbertson CS, Bramen J, Cohen MS, London ED, Olmstead RE, Gan JJ, et al. Effect of bupropion treatment on brain activation induced by cigarette-related cues in smokers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):505–15. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Franklin T, Wang Z, Suh JJ, Hazan R, Cruz J, Li Y, et al. Effects of varenicline on smoking cue-triggered neural and craving responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):516–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sutherland MT, Riedel MC, Flannery JS, Yanes JA, Fox PT, Stein EA, et al. Chronic cigarette smoking is linked with structural alterations in brain regions showing acute nicotinic drug-induced functional modulations. Behav Brain Funct. 2016;12(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12993-016-0100-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fedota JR, Stein EA. Resting-state functional connectivity and nicotine addiction: prospects for biomarker development. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;1349:64–82. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhou S, Xiao D, Peng P, Wang SK, Liu Z, Qin HY, et al. Effect of smoking on resting-state functional connectivity in smokers: An fMRI study. Respirology. 2017;22(6):1118–24. doi: 10.1111/resp.13048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Savjani RR, Velasquez KM, Thompson-Lake DG, Baldwin PR, Eagleman DM, De La Garza R 2nd, et al. Characterizing white matter changes in cigarette smokers via diffusion tensor imaging. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;145:134–42. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Stockwell T, Butt P, Beirness D, Gliksman L, Paradis C. The basis for Canada’s new low-risk drinking guidelines: a relative risk approach to estimating hazardous levels and patterns of alcohol use. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31(2):126–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00342.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86(9):1119–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tiffany ST, Drobes DJ. The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. Br J Addict. 1991;86(11):1467–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01732.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Crawford JR, Henry JD. The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004;43(Pt 3):245–65. doi: 10.1348/0144665031752934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zuckerman M, Neeb M. Sensation seeking and psychopathology. Psychiatry Res. 1979;1(3):255–64. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(79)90007-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption—II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Klem GH, Luders HO, Jasper HH, Elger C. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Thielscher A, Antunes A, Saturnino GB. Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: A useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:222–5. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Nielsen JD, Madsen KH, Puonti O, Siebner HR, Bauer C, Madsen CG, et al. Automatic skull segmentation from MR images for realistic volume conductor models of the head: Assessment of the state-of-the-art. Neuroimage. 2018;174:587–98. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Palm U, Hasan A, Strube W, Padberg F. tDCS for the treatment of depression: a comprehensive review. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016;266(8):681–94. doi: 10.1007/s00406-016-0674-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Brizer D. Quitting Smoking for Dummies 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Branch R, Wilson R. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Dummies. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(5):CD009329. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Baumann S, Griffiths TD, Rees A, Hunter D, Sun L, Thiele A. Characterisation of the BOLD response time course at different levels of the auditory pathway in non-human primates. Neuroimage. 2010;50(3):1099–108. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Logothetis NK, Guggenberger H, Peled S, Pauls J. Functional imaging of the monkey brain. Nat Neurosci. 1999;2(6):555–62. doi: 10.1038/9210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Logothetis NK, Wandell BA. Interpreting the BOLD signal. Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:735–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.66.082602.092845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Khazaal Y, Zullino D, Billieux J. The Geneva Smoking Pictures: development and preliminary validation. Eur Addict Res. 2012;18(3):103–9. doi: 10.1159/000335083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Pajula J, Tohka J. How Many Is Enough? Effect of Sample Size in Inter-Subject Correlation Analysis of fMRI. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2016;2016:2094601. doi: 10.1155/2016/2094601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Woolrich MW, Behrens TE, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM. Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage. 2004;21(4):1732–47. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.McIntosh AR, Lobaugh NJ. Partial least squares analysis of neuroimaging data: applications and advances. Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S250–63. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Johansen-Berg H, Rueckert D, Nichols TE, Mackay CE, et al. Tract-based spatial statistics: voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data. Neuroimage. 2006;31(4):1487–505. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S. Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20(1):45–57. doi: 10.1109/42.906424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.McLaren ME, Nissim NR, Woods AJ. The effects of medication use in transcranial direct current stimulation: A brief review. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(1):52–8. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Loughead J, Ray R, Wileyto EP, Ruparel K, O’Donnell GP, Senecal N, et al. Brain activity and emotional processing in smokers treated with varenicline. Addict Biol. 2013;18(4):732–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2011.00324.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wilcox CE, Claus ED, Calhoun VD, Rachakonda S, Littlewood RA, Mickey J, et al. Default mode network deactivation to smoking cue relative to food cue predicts treatment outcome in nicotine use disorder. Addict Biol. 2018;23(1):412–24. doi: 10.1111/adb.12498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wheelock MD, Reid MA, To H, White DM, Cropsey KL, Lahti AC. Open label smoking cessation with varenicline is associated with decreased glutamate levels and functional changes in anterior cingulate cortex: preliminary findings. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:158. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wang C, Shen Z, Huang P, Qian W, Yu X, Sun J, et al. Altered spontaneous activity of posterior cingulate cortex and superior temporal gyrus are associated with a smoking cessation treatment outcome using varenicline revealed by regional homogeneity. Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11(3):611–8. doi: 10.1007/s11682-016-9538-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Park J, Oh Y, Chung K, Kim KJ, Kim CO, Park JY. Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Trials. 2019;20(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3360-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Martens G, Lejeune N, O’Brien AT, Fregni F, Martial C, Wannez S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of home-based 4-week tDCS in chronic minimally conscious state. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(5):982–90. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gough N, Brkan L, Subramaniam P, Chiuccariello L, De Petrillo A, Mulsant BH, et al. Feasibility of remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation and cognitive remediation: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0223029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zhang H, Mansoursadeghi-Gilan T, Hussain S, Veldhuizen S, Le Foll B, Selby P, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of bupropion and varenicline for smoking cessation using an internet-based delivery system: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial (MATCH study). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109312. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ. Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2006;29:565–98. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wen M, Yang Z, Wei Y, Huang H, Zheng R, Wang W, et al. More than just statics: Temporal dynamic changes of intrinsic brain activity in cigarette smoking. Addict Biol. 2021;26(6):e13050. doi: 10.1111/adb.13050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kalivas PW, Volkow ND. The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(8):1403–13. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Battaglia S, Garofalo S, di Pellegrino G, Starita F. Revaluing the Role of vmPFC in the Acquisition of Pavlovian Threat Conditioning in Humans. J Neurosci. 2020;40(44):8491–500. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0304-20.2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Battaglia S, Harrison BJ, Fullana MA. Does the human ventromedial prefrontal cortex support fear learning, fear extinction or both? A commentary on subregional contributions. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27(2):784–6. doi: 10.1038/s41380-021-01326-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Brunoni AR, Valim C, Fregni F. Combination of noninvasive brain stimulation with pharmacotherapy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011;8(1):31–9. doi: 10.1586/erd.10.62 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joseph Donlan

20 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-30439Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zawertailo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been assessed by three expert reviewers, whose comments are appended below. The reviewers have highlighted several areas where additional information or discussion would aid reproducibility and readability of your work. Please ensure you respond to each point carefully in your response to reviewers document, and modify your manuscript accordingly. We note that reviewer 1 has requested that you cite additional literature as part of your revisions. Please do review the recommendations and include any additional studies that you think are appropriate and add value to your manuscript, however there is no need to aim for any numerical target for total number of papers cited.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph Donlan

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research is funded by Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND), a peer-reviewed research grant competition funded by Pfizer Inc (Zawertailo (GRAND2012) WS2391913). Pfizer Canada, the Canadian operation of Pfizer Inc, is located in Kirkland, Quebec, Canada (Telephone: 514-695-0500)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Pfizer Inc. contribution consists of varenicline supply free of charge and funding obtained through the GRAND award program. "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This research is funded by Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND), a peer-reviewed research grant competition funded by Pfizer Inc (Zawertailo (GRAND2012) WS2391913). Pfizer Canada, the Canadian operation of Pfizer Inc, is located in Kirkland, Quebec, Canada (Telephone: 514-695-0500)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work. PS reports receiving funding and/or honoraria from Pfizer Inc./Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart, Bhasin Consulting Fund Inc., Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, ABBVie, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; LZ receives support from Pfizer Global Research Awards in Nicotine dependence (GRAND) Award Program; there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. HZ and NR have no conflicts of interests to declare." 

We note that you received funding from a commercial sources: Pfizer Inc./Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart, Bhasin Consulting Fund Inc., ABBVie, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. 

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

9. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

10. We note that Figure 3 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Zawertailo and colleagues aim to investigate in the present study, entitled ‘Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial’, the current status of knowledge of the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation. For this purpose, a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial with fifty healthy will be conducted; participants will receive either active tDCS (20 minutes at 2 mA) or sham tDCS (30 seconds at 2 mA, 19.5 minutes at 0 mA) for 10 daily sessions plus 5 follow up sessions. All participants will be given standard varenicline treatment concurrently with stimulations. The primary outcome is a self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking, in addition to an improvement in smoking cessation due to tDCS-varenicline combined treatment.

The main strength of this paper is that it addresses an interesting and timely question, investigating the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. In general, I think the idea of this article is really interesting and the authors’ fascinating observations on this timely topic may be of interest to the readers of Plos One. However, some comments, as well as some crucial evidence that should be included to support the authors’ argumentation, need to be addressed to improve the quality of the article, its adequacy, and its readability prior to the publication in the present form. My overall judgment is to publish this article after the authors have carefully considered my suggestions below, in particular reshaping the parts of the Introduction and Discussion sections.

Please consider the following comments:

• Regarding the Abstract: according to the Journal’s guidelines, authors should have provided an abstract of about 300 words maximum. Indeed, the current one includes 356 words. Please correct it.

• In general, I recommend authors to use more evidence to back their claims, especially in the Introduction of the article, which I believe is currently lacking. Thus, I recommend the authors to attempt to deepen the subject of their manuscript, as the bibliography is too concise: nonetheless, in my opinion, less than 70 articles for a research paper are really insufficient. Indeed, currently authors cite only 54 papers, and they are too low. Therefore, I suggest the authors to focus their efforts on researching more relevant literature: I believe that adding more studies and reviews will help them to provide better and more accurate background to this study. In this review, I will try to help the authors by suggesting some relevant literature of my knowledge that suit their manuscript.

• Introduction: The authors take a narrow view of the tDCS direct effect on cortical circuits underlying craving, describing its impact on symptoms among cigarette smokers in detail. Nevertheless, I think that a deeper examination of tDCS potential to modulate cortical excitability and, specifically, to induce motor cortical plasticity in humans would provide a better characterization and useful background in this instance. It is well known that non-invasive brain stimulation can modulate the increased neural activity of cortical areas involved in the control of behavior: in this regard, I would suggest adding evidence from a recent study that could provide interesting insights on the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (in this case, single-pulse TMS) to investigate the time course of the motor system readiness in response to processing of relevant arousing stimuli (i.e., happy and fearful faces), addressing how differences in the experience of aversive feelings modulate corticospinal excitability, hence, the preparation of adaptive motor responses required for the execution of appropriate behaviors (https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091203). Results from this study, which involved healthy participants, helped gaining a better understating of the abnormal cortical excitability that characterizes craving. I also suggest an interesting article on altered excitability in chronic smokers (https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.130086) that will offer a more coherent and defined background.

• Introduction: Following the first point raised, for a more thorough and comprehensive overview on this topic, I believe that it may be useful to have more information from additional evidence that focused on autonomic nervous system responses evoked by arousing stimuli (i.e., emotional stimuli or addiction-related stimuli). Importantly, recent findings suggest that responses to approaching emotional stimuli (i.e., emotional faces) modulate autonomic arousal as a function of the distance between the observer and the stimuli, resulting in an appropriate organization of defensive responses (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05829-4). Similarly, results from another recent study showed that interpretation of potentially threatening situations, such as others’ proximity, triggers a number of physiological responses that help regulating the distance between ourselves and others during social interaction (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82223-2). Moreover, authors might also see studies that have focused on this topic (https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00226.2018; https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13636).

• Cognitive behavioural reading material (weeks 1 through 12): I suggest the authors to reorganize/reshape this section, providing detailed information about cognitive tests, as well as relevant scientific references, utilized in this session.

• Participant follow-up and retention: Could the authors discuss how they intend to manage probable drop-outs? Please explain it.

• Page 8, Discussion: In this section, authors thoroughly addressed their expected outcomes and their argumentation; however, I would have liked to see some views on a way forward. Hence, I ask them to include some thoughtful as well as in-depth considerations, making an effort, trying to explain the theoretical as well as the translational application of their research. In this respect, I believe that it could be useful to have more information from additional research that have focused on the pathophysiology underlying addiction, specifically on frontal cortex abnormalities and executive dysfunctions associated with impairments in memory and learning. Evidence from a recent study conducted on patients with lesion in the ventromedial portion of prefrontal cortex revealed that this brain structure is involved in the acquisition of emotional conditioning (i.e., learning) and assessed how naturally occurring bilateral lesion centered on the vmPFC compromises the generation of conditioned psychophysiological response during the acquisition of conditioning (https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0304-20.2020). Accordingly, in a recent theoretical review that focused on neurobiology of fear conditioning, the distinct contributions of anterior/posterior subregions of the vmPFC in the processing of safety-threat information was discussed: here authors provided evidence for the fundamental role of this how region in the evaluation and representation of stimulus-outcome’s value needed to produce sustained physiological responses (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01326-4). These findings highlight prefrontal cortex’s key role in the acquisition of new learning, and how its disrupted function may contribute to irregular behavioral responses and therefore to the development of neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by altered value attribution, reward anticipation or fear extinction (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD, substance-related and addictive disorders).

• Even though it is not mandatory, I believe that the ‘Conclusions’ section would be useful to adequately indicate convey what the authors believe will be the take-home message of their study, and therefore provide possible keys to advancing research and understanding of the prevalence of depression in post-stroke patients.

• In according to the previous comment, I would ask the authors to better define a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section before the end of the manuscript, in which authors can describe in detail and report all the technical issues that may be brought to the surface.

• Figures: I suggest to add a figure that displays stimulation sites’ position on the scalp. Also, I would appreciate some current flow modeling that could provide a better understanding of estimated current flow, for example using any of the free software like ROAST, COMETS, SimNIBS.

• References: According to the Journal’s guidelines, do not use a numbered list to include citations in the 'References' section.

Overall, the manuscript contains 3 figures and 54 references. In my opinion, the number of references it is too low for an original research article, and this issue may prevent the possibility of publishing it in this form. However, I believe that the manuscript may carry important value providing preliminary evidence of the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to 12 weeks of varenicline treatment for smoking cessation.

I hope that, after these careful revisions, the manuscript can meet the Journal’s high standards for publication. I am available for a new round of revision of this review.

I declare no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Reviewer #2: The current manuscript is a protocol to conduct a study where the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is studied as an adjunct therapy to varenicline for smoking cessation. The authors put a nice plan together to conduct this study, almost all is in place except two control groups are missing: (1) varenicline group alone and (2) tDCS group alone. Although the effect of these two groups have been reported previously, it is better to include these groups to enable the authors to make a firm conclusion regarding the combination therapy against the single therapy. The authors may argue that the varenicline plus sham tDCS group is the control for the current study. However, if this population do not respond to varenicline alone or tDCS alone, this information can be obtained by including these two additional groups. Also, the authors can make a firm conclusion whether the effect is additive or synergistic. Please also ensure to state that scans are taken during exposure to neutral cues as well as smoking cue to ensure the scans can be correlated to the level of craving. One issue with this approach is that if neuronal connectivity or activation occurs in a delayed manner and during the time the other cues are shown, how the authors can interpret that and differentiate neuronal activation associated with the cues if the signal shows up after the exposure to the cue. Some parts of the manuscripts are written in the future tense and others in past tense. Please ensure that tense is used appropriate for a given sentence. Also, change the following minor typos.

Minor:

1. Please change "nicotine" to "nicotinic" on line 81.

2. Please use the same abbreviation for both lines 144 and 146. I suggest to use RsFC in both lines.

3. Please change to "differences have been" on line 148.

4. The word :respectively" may not be needed on line 149.

5. Please leave a comma between QSU and etc. on line 304.

6. Please change to "at the end of the 12-week treatment" on line 321.

7. Please delete the description about BOLD since this was defined above (line 362).

8. Please change "at end of the treatment" to " at the end of the treatment" throughout the manuscript.

9. Please leave a comma between years and etc. on line 406.

10. Please change "loss" to "lost" and "not quit" to "no-quitter" on line 415.

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-21-30439

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial.

General Comments:

This manuscript describes a study protocol for a double-blind RCT examining the effectiveness of tDCS as an adjunctive treatment with varenicline pharmacotherapy (varenicline is a alpha4beta2 nicotinic ligand and is a form of nicotine replacement therapy).

The authors do a good job of establishing the rationale for this study. The effectiveness of pharmacotherapy alone treatment in smoking cessation treatment is limited and thus, examining potential adjunctive treatments (drug, physiological, or behavioral) that may increase long term smoking cessation success is an important and clinically relevant research endeavor.

The methodology is sound and uses best practices of RCT plus sham control groups. Baseline MRI scans will permit determination of changes due to treatment in from both nicotine-deprivation and -satiation conditions. The 12-wk treatment protocol should allow for determination of overall treatment effectiveness. The researchers propose to assess multiple behavioral measures (mood, craving, withdrawal) at each visit and importantly, will also use biological measures of CO ppm and urinary continine levels to verify smoking status. The authors have chosen appropriate doses and employed a standard dose-escalation procedure. As this is a proof-of-concept study to better establish experimental parameters for future work, these methodological details seem appropriate.

Significance: as there is sparse literature on the potential for tDCS to enhance currently approved pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation is great. This protocol has the potential to reveal new avenues for treatments to improve smoking cessation paradigms.

Comments and/or Points for the authors to consider:

1. Current knowledge suggests individualized treatment for smoking cessation is necessary – and may largely be a function of individual experience, history, dependence severity, etc. The authors describe inclusion criteria of at least 8 cigarettes per day, which strikes this reader as setting the bar relatively low and perhaps creating a more heterogeneous sample (e.g., 8 cigarettes/day for 1 year vs 30 cigarettes/day for 10 years would be two very different users in my experience). Thus, this variable sample may hinder the ability to find significant differences. However, if the authors matched their groups on this factor, or somehow controlled for severity statistically, that may mitigate some of these methodological concerns.

2. Exclusion criteria include other drugs of abuse and the authors specifically mention cannabis products but it is not clear if this definition also includes alcohol. This is important because varenicline has interactions with alcohol, thus patients should be at least cautioned about concurrent alcohol use. Varenicline also increases risk for adverse reactions in individuals with renal disease and it’s unclear if subjects will be screened for that.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kabirullah Lutfy

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 8;17(12):e0277408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277408.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Aug 2022

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: File naming has been updated (p. 37).

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

Response: Updated Financial Disclosure.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research is funded by Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND), a peer-reviewed research grant competition funded by Pfizer Inc (Zawertailo (GRAND2012) WS2391913). Pfizer Canada, the Canadian operation of Pfizer Inc, is located in Kirkland, Quebec, Canada (Telephone: 514-695-0500)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: The statement has been added in the cover letter and on the electronic submission.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Pfizer Inc. contribution consists of varenicline supply free of charge and funding obtained through the GRAND award program."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This research is funded by Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND), a peer-reviewed research grant competition funded by Pfizer Inc (Zawertailo (GRAND2012) WS2391913). Pfizer Canada, the Canadian operation of Pfizer Inc, is located in Kirkland, Quebec, Canada (Telephone: 514-695-0500)."

Response: Removed.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work. PS reports receiving funding and/or honoraria from Pfizer Inc./Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart, Bhasin Consulting Fund Inc., Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, ABBVie, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; LZ receives support from Pfizer Global Research Awards in Nicotine dependence (GRAND) Award Program; there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. HZ and NR have no conflicts of interests to declare."

We note that you received funding from a commercial sources: Pfizer Inc./Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart, Bhasin Consulting Fund Inc., ABBVie, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: This has been amended (p.30) and in the new cover letter submitted.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: Updated to show in Methods (p. 11)

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Response: Addressed (p.19). Note: Figure 3 is now Figure 4, due to the addition of a new Figure.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Captions for supporting information files have been added at the end (p.37).

9. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

Response: Updated on p. 31: “This protocol will be granted public access”. Study protocol will be made available. There was no sponsor or body imposing this restriction on document sharing.

10. We note that Figure 3 includes an image of a participant in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Response: Picture has been replaced with a photo with no identifying or potentially identifying information. We have added the source of the photos to the figure caption (p.36).

6. Review Comments to the Author

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Zawertailo and colleagues aim to investigate in the present study, entitled ‘Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial’, the current status of knowledge of the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation. For this purpose, a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial with fifty healthy will be conducted; participants will receive either active tDCS (20 minutes at 2 mA) or sham tDCS (30 seconds at 2 mA, 19.5 minutes at 0 mA) for 10 daily sessions plus 5 follow up sessions. All participants will be given standard varenicline treatment concurrently with stimulations. The primary outcome is a self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking, in addition to an improvement in smoking cessation due to tDCS-varenicline combined treatment. The main strength of this paper is that it addresses an interesting and timely question, investigating the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. In general, I think the idea of this article is really interesting and the authors’ fascinating observations on this timely topic may be of interest to the readers of Plos One. However, some comments, as well as some crucial evidence that should be included to support the authors’ argumentation, need to be addressed to improve the quality of the article, its adequacy, and its readability prior to the publication in the present form. My overall judgment is to publish this article after the authors have carefully considered my suggestions below, in particular reshaping the parts of the Introduction and Discussion sections.

Please consider the following comments:

• Regarding the Abstract: according to the Journal’s guidelines, authors should have provided an abstract of about 300 words maximum. Indeed, the current one includes 356 words. Please correct it.

Response: Thank you for your review and helpful suggestions. This has been addressed (Abstract is now 299 words, p.3)

• In general, I recommend authors to use more evidence to back their claims, especially in the Introduction of the article, which I believe is currently lacking. Thus, I recommend the authors to attempt to deepen the subject of their manuscript, as the bibliography is too concise: nonetheless, in my opinion, less than 70 articles for a research paper are really insufficient. Indeed, currently authors cite only 54 papers, and they are too low. Therefore, I suggest the authors to focus their efforts on researching more relevant literature: I believe that adding more studies and reviews will help them to provide better and more accurate background to this study. In this review, I will try to help the authors by suggesting some relevant literature of my knowledge that suit their manuscript.

Response: Addressed in manuscript. There are now 79 references in the manuscript.

• Introduction: The authors take a narrow view of the tDCS direct effect on cortical circuits underlying craving, describing its impact on symptoms among cigarette smokers in detail. Nevertheless, I think that a deeper examination of tDCS potential to modulate cortical excitability and, specifically, to induce motor cortical plasticity in humans would provide a better characterization and useful background in this instance. It is well known that non-invasive brain stimulation can modulate the increased neural activity of cortical areas involved in the control of behavior: in this regard, I would suggest adding evidence from a recent study that could provide interesting insights on the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (in this case, single-pulse TMS) to investigate the time course of the motor system readiness in response to processing of relevant arousing stimuli (i.e., happy and fearful faces), addressing how differences in the experience of aversive feelings modulate corticospinal excitability, hence, the preparation of adaptive motor responses required for the execution of appropriate behaviors (https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091203). Results from this study, which involved healthy participants, helped gaining a better understating of the abnormal cortical excitability that characterizes craving. I also suggest an interesting article on altered excitability in chronic smokers (https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.130086) that will offer a more coherent and defined background.

Response: Thank you for the comment and article suggestions. This has been added in the introduction (p.7-8)

• Introduction: Following the first point raised, for a more thorough and comprehensive overview on this topic, I believe that it may be useful to have more information from additional evidence that focused on autonomic nervous system responses evoked by arousing stimuli (i.e., emotional stimuli or addiction-related stimuli). Importantly, recent findings suggest that responses to approaching emotional stimuli (i.e., emotional faces) modulate autonomic arousal as a function of the distance between the observer and the stimuli, resulting in an appropriate organization of defensive responses (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05829-4). Similarly, results from another recent study showed that interpretation of potentially threatening situations, such as others’ proximity, triggers a number of physiological responses that help regulating the distance between ourselves and others during social interaction (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82223-2). Moreover, authors might also see studies that have focused on this topic (https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00226.2018; https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13636).

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, however, while these are interesting papers, we feel they do not pertain to our protocol studying tDCS as a treatment for nicotine dependence.

• Cognitive behavioural reading material (weeks 1 through 12): I suggest the authors to reorganize/reshape this section, providing detailed information about cognitive tests, as well as relevant scientific references, utilized in this session.

Response: Added in cognitive behavioral section (p.16-17). There were no cognitive tests performed during or after tDCS sessions. References for the reading materials have been added.

• Participant follow-up and retention: Could the authors discuss how they intend to manage probable drop-outs? Please explain it.

Response: Added in methods (p.18): Since this is a proof-of-concept trial, participants that lose contact, or miss more than 3 consecutive booster sessions will be considered as drop-outs. To manage probable drop-outs, participants will be regularly contacted via email and phone of their upcoming appointments. Study staff will also be readily available to accommodate participant availabilities and/or changes to appointment schedules. Study staff will also be engaging in regular appointments to create a supportive and safe environment for participants. Lastly, varenicline will be dispensed at two time points (baseline and at 4 weeks follow up) to encourage treatment retention within the first month.

• Page 8, Discussion: In this section, authors thoroughly addressed their expected outcomes and their argumentation; however, I would have liked to see some views on a way forward. Hence, I ask them to include some thoughtful as well as in-depth considerations, making an effort, trying to explain the theoretical as well as the translational application of their research. In this respect, I believe that it could be useful to have more information from additional research that have focused on the pathophysiology underlying addiction, specifically on frontal cortex abnormalities and executive dysfunctions associated with impairments in memory and learning. Evidence from a recent study conducted on patients with lesion in the ventromedial portion of prefrontal cortex revealed that this brain structure is involved in the acquisition of emotional conditioning (i.e., learning) and assessed how naturally occurring bilateral lesion centered on the vmPFC compromises the generation of conditioned psychophysiological response during the acquisition of conditioning (https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0304-20.2020). Accordingly, in a recent theoretical review that focused on neurobiology of fear conditioning, the distinct contributions of anterior/posterior subregions of the vmPFC in the processing of safety-threat information was discussed: here authors provided evidence for the fundamental role of this how region in the evaluation and representation of stimulus-outcome’s value needed to produce sustained physiological responses (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01326-4). These findings highlight prefrontal cortex’s key role in the acquisition of new learning, and how its disrupted function may contribute to irregular behavioral responses and therefore to the development of neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by altered value attribution, reward anticipation or fear extinction (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD, substance-related and addictive disorders).

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Additional information has been added in the discussion (p.26-28)

• Even though it is not mandatory, I believe that the ‘Conclusions’ section would be useful to adequately indicate convey what the authors believe will be the take-home message of their study, and therefore provide possible keys to advancing research and understanding of the prevalence of depression in post-stroke patients.

Response: Addressed, added Conclusion statement (p. 28-29)

• In according to the previous comment, I would ask the authors to better define a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section before the end of the manuscript, in which authors can describe in detail and report all the technical issues that may be brought to the surface.

Response: Addressed, added a Limitations and Future Direction sections (p.28).

• Figures: I suggest to add a figure that displays stimulation sites’ position on the scalp. Also, I would appreciate some current flow modeling that could provide a better understanding of estimated current flow, for example using any of the free software like ROAST, COMETS, SimNIBS.

Response: Electrical field calculations are now addressed in methods (p.14-15) and a new figure (Figure 3) has been added to show the estimated current flow using SimNIBs of a test participant.

• References: According to the Journal’s guidelines, do not use a numbered list to include citations in the 'References' section.

Response: According to the PLOS One submission guidelines, references should be in Vancouver style and numbered in order of appearance.

Overall, the manuscript contains 3 figures and 54 references. In my opinion, the number of references it is too low for an original research article, and this issue may prevent the possibility of publishing it in this form. However, I believe that the manuscript may carry important value providing preliminary evidence of the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to 12 weeks of varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. I hope that, after these careful revisions, the manuscript can meet the Journal’s high standards for publication. I am available for a new round of revision of this review. I declare no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Response: The revised manuscript now contains 4 figures and 79 references. A more in-depth introduction has been added and the discussion has been expanded as well. Thank you!

Reviewer #2: The current manuscript is a protocol to conduct a study where the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is studied as an adjunct therapy to varenicline for smoking cessation. The authors put a nice plan together to conduct this study, almost all is in place except two control groups are missing: (1) varenicline group alone and (2) tDCS group alone. Although the effect of these two groups have been reported previously, it is better to include these groups to enable the authors to make a firm conclusion regarding the combination therapy against the single therapy. The authors may argue that the varenicline plus sham tDCS group is the control for the current study. However, if this population do not respond to varenicline alone or tDCS alone, this information can be obtained by including these two additional groups. Also, the authors can make a firm conclusion whether the effect is additive or synergistic. Please also ensure to state that scans are taken during exposure to neutral cues as well as smoking cue to ensure the scans can be correlated to the level of craving. One issue with this approach is that if neuronal connectivity or activation occurs in a delayed manner and during the time the other cues are shown, how the authors can interpret that and differentiate neuronal activation associated with the cues if the signal shows up after the exposure to the cue. Some parts of the manuscripts are written in the future tense and others in past tense. Please ensure that tense is used appropriate for a given sentence. Also, change the following minor typos.

Response: Thank you for your review! Regarding the placebo varenicline group, this is limitation is now addressed in the discussion section (p.27-28). In regards to the MRI scans, a sentence has been added to the methods section for the state that the scans are taken and for the potential delay of BOLD signal response and how the authors plan on addressing this (p.20). The tense has also been changed in some parts to be future tense.

Minor:

1. Please change "nicotine" to "nicotinic" on line 81.

2. Please use the same abbreviation for both lines 144 and 146. I suggest to use RsFC in both lines.

3. Please change to "differences have been" on line 148.

4. The word: respectively" may not be needed on line 149.

5. Please leave a comma between QSU and etc. on line 304.

6. Please change to "at the end of the 12-week treatment" on line 321.

7. Please delete the description about BOLD since this was defined above (line 362).

8. Please change "at end of the treatment" to " at the end of the treatment" throughout the manuscript.

9. Please leave a comma between years and etc. on line 406.

10. Please change "loss" to "lost" and "not quit" to "no-quitter" on line 415.

Response: All minor comments have been addressed in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-21-30439

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial.

General Comments:

This manuscript describes a study protocol for a double-blind RCT examining the effectiveness of tDCS as an adjunctive treatment with varenicline pharmacotherapy (varenicline is a alpha4beta2 nicotinic ligand and is a form of nicotine replacement therapy).

The authors do a good job of establishing the rationale for this study. The effectiveness of pharmacotherapy alone treatment in smoking cessation treatment is limited and thus, examining potential adjunctive treatments (drug, physiological, or behavioral) that may increase long term smoking cessation success is an important and clinically relevant research endeavor.

The methodology is sound and uses best practices of RCT plus sham control groups. Baseline MRI scans will permit determination of changes due to treatment in from both nicotine-deprivation and -satiation conditions. The 12-wk treatment protocol should allow for determination of overall treatment effectiveness. The researchers propose to assess multiple behavioral measures (mood, craving, withdrawal) at each visit and importantly, will also use biological measures of CO ppm and urinary continine levels to verify smoking status. The authors have chosen appropriate doses and employed a standard dose-escalation procedure. As this is a proof-of-concept study to better establish experimental parameters for future work, these methodological details seem appropriate.

Significance: as there is sparse literature on the potential for tDCS to enhance currently approved pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation is great. This protocol has the potential to reveal new avenues for treatments to improve smoking cessation paradigms.

Comments and/or Points for the authors to consider:

1. Current knowledge suggests individualized treatment for smoking cessation is necessary – and may largely be a function of individual experience, history, dependence severity, etc. The authors describe inclusion criteria of at least 8 cigarettes per day, which strikes this reader as setting the bar relatively low and perhaps creating a more heterogeneous sample (e.g., 8 cigarettes/day for 1 year vs 30 cigarettes/day for 10 years would be two very different users in my experience). Thus, this variable sample may hinder the ability to find significant differences. However, if the authors matched their groups on this factor, or somehow controlled for severity statistically, that may mitigate some of these methodological concerns.

Response: Thank you for the review and comments. The rationale for including smokers with 8 cigarettes per day is based on the observation that 1) average cigarette consumption of a moderate smoker is between 10-19 cigarettes per day and 2) epidemiological data has consistently shown that smokers tend to underreport their cigarette consumption and therefore a more conservative cut-off was used to encourage recruitment of a sample population that is representative of the general population of smokers in Canada. That being said, the authors do plan on controlling for cigarette consumption and nicotine dependence in statistical analyses (added on p. 24).

2. Exclusion criteria include other drugs of abuse and the authors specifically mention cannabis products but it is not clear if this definition also includes alcohol. This is important because varenicline has interactions with alcohol, thus patients should be at least cautioned about concurrent alcohol use. Varenicline also increases risk for adverse reactions in individuals with renal disease and it’s unclear if subjects will be screened for that.

Response: Alcohol use will be allowed in the study, assuming that participants do not have an alcohol use disorder (assessed by the M.I.N.I and AUDIT) and are drinking within Canada’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines (for women: no more than 10 standard drinks/week, for men:15 drinks/week). A section has been added in Methods (p. 12). Participants will also be required to attend a physician visit, during which the qualified investigator (P.S.) will assess for potential risks for participants and decide if varenicline would be safe for the participant. Participants will also be cautioned in this appointment regarding concurrent alcohol use (p.12-13).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Kabirullah Lutfy

9 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-30439R1Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zawertailo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kabirullah Lutfy

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Zawertailo,

I served as a reviewer on the original version of your manuscript and requested you to add the varenicline group alone, but I was later assigned to serve as a guest editor on your revised versions. Please make the necessary changes, as I emailed you yesterday, and send us the further revised manuscript addressing the changes requested.

I look forward to receiving your further revised manuscript at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this article Zawertailo and colleagues explored the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation. I really appreciate the Authors’ response to the points I have raised in the first round of review, as well as their clarifications to some of my concerns.

I only have few last suggestions to do, to further improve the theoretical background of the present paper and its argumentation: in this regard, I would recommend deepening the information about the application of Non-invasive brain stimulation in modulating cortical excitability, and how these techniques can be used to investigate altered brain circuits (i.e., primary sensorimotor cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the midbrain nucleus cuneiformis) in chronic smokers (https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9070734; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10030627; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2022.04.003; https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14122; https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00362-2019).

Overall, this is a timely and needed study, and I look forward to seeing further studies on this issue by these authors in the future.

Thank You for your work.

Reviewer #3: The authors have done a very thorough job in detailing and addressing the review comments by the reviewers of the previous version of this manuscript.

The authors have adequately addressed all of my previous comments and concerns.

I have no further commentary or suggestions.

Reviewer #4: This is a proof of concept trial, therefore the statistical content is minimal, but seems to be planned well. The other reviewers have given very detailed comments--I was not a reviewer in the first round. The sample size, randomization, blinding, and statistical analysis plan are sound.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Joshua S. Rodefer

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 8;17(12):e0277408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277408.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Sep 2022

Reviewer: "I only have a few last suggestions to do, to further improve the theoretical background of the present paper and its argumentation: in this regard, I would recommend deepening the information about the application of Non-invasive brain stimulation in modulating cortical excitability, and how these techniques can be used to investigate altered brain circuits (i.e., primary sensorimotor cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the midbrain nucleus cuneiformis) in chronic smokers

Immune Influencers in Action: Metabolites and Enzymes of the Tryptophan-Kynurenine Metabolic Pathway

(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9070734__;!!FxkXuJIC!fV9JcA4KFOK2ywkccMQl4FPpsWA5s2JJsDlTtOnp-ZcXs30CyE0fE9YrN_A0u189lpM-Rd9dKTNrOF1887PKWiw$ ;

The Neurobiological Correlates of Gaze Perception in Healthy Individuals and Neurologic Patients

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10030627__;!!FxkXuJIC!fV9JcA4KFOK2ywkccMQl4FPpsWA5s2JJsDlTtOnp-ZcXs30CyE0fE9YrN_A0u189lpM-Rd9dKTNrOF18GgbK_1A$ ;

Functional interplay between central and autonomic nervous systems in human fear conditioning

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2022.04.003__;!!FxkXuJIC!fV9JcA4KFOK2ywkccMQl4FPpsWA5s2JJsDlTtOnp-ZcXs30CyE0fE9YrN_A0u189lpM-Rd9dKTNrOF18966nyuM$ ;

Characterizing cardiac autonomic dynamics of fear learning in humans

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14122__;!!FxkXuJIC!fV9JcA4KFOK2ywkccMQl4FPpsWA5s2JJsDlTtOnp-ZcXs30CyE0fE9YrN_A0u189lpM-Rd9dKTNrOF18e9b52MY$ ;

Altered neural activity in brain cough suppression networks in cigarette smokers

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00362-2019__;!!FxkXuJIC!fV9JcA4KFOK2ywkccMQl4FPpsWA5s2JJsDlTtOnp-ZcXs30CyE0fE9YrN_A0u189lpM-Rd9dKTNrOF18FQfQne4$ )."

Response: Thank you for your comment. A paragraph has been added on p. 8 of the manuscript detailing more information on the potential of tDCS modulating cortical excitability and altered brain circuits.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewer_secondround.docx

Decision Letter 2

Kabirullah Lutfy

27 Oct 2022

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-21-30439R2

Dear Dr. Zawertailo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kabirullah Lutfy

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors did an excellent job clarifying the questions I have raised in my previous round of review. Currently, this paper entitled ‘Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial’ is a well-written, timely piece of research and provides a useful summary of the existing status of knowledge of the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation.

Overall, this is a timely and needed work. It is well researched and nicely written, with a good balance between descriptive and narrative text.

I believe that this paper does not need a further revision, therefore the manuscript meets the Journal’s high standards for publication.

Thank You for your work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Kabirullah Lutfy

6 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-30439R2

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial

Dear Dr. Zawertailo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Kabirullah Lutfy

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. SPIRIT checklist.

    (PDF)

    S2 Appendix. Informed consent.

    Copy of the informed consent form.

    (PDF)

    S3 Appendix. Biological specimens.

    Details of biological specimen collection and the tests used for cotinine and drugs abuse.

    (PDF)

    S4 Appendix. Adverse events of tDCS and varenicline.

    Participants will complete the adverse event list at each study appointment. The list consists of the most common side effects of varenicline and tDCS respectively. Participants can indicate the severity by mild, moderate or severe.

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewer_secondround.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The article does not report data, and the data availability policy is not applicable.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES