Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that applies low intensity direct current to the scalp through electrodes. Unlike rTMS, the current does not directly induce synchronized action potentials: it modifies membrane polarization and neuronal population excitability at a subthreshold level, with subsequent effects on plasticity and brain network dynamics.

In depression, the most extensively studied configuration uses anodal stimulation of the left prefrontal region, often with a return electrode over a contralateral frontal or extracranial area depending on the protocol. Randomized studies and meta analyses show an antidepressant signal, but with substantial heterogeneity in patients, montages, intensity, duration and number of sessions.

The regulatory status changed recently. In the United States, in December 2025, the FDA approved through PMA the specific home device Flow FL-100 for adults with a moderate to severe major depressive episode who are not considered resistant to pharmacological treatment, either as monotherapy or as an adjunct to antidepressants. This authorization is device specific and does not amount to indiscriminate approval of any tDCS device, montage or protocol; indications and availability also continue to differ across jurisdictions.

Neurophysiological mechanism and current distribution

The current passes through the skin, skull, cerebrospinal fluid and brain tissue, creating an electric field with an intensity far below that required to directly evoke neuronal firing. The effect depends on neuronal orientation relative to the field, electrode geometry and individual anatomy. For this reason, the formula “excitatory anode, inhibitory cathode” is not a universal law: it derives primarily from observations in the motor cortex and becomes less predictable in complex associative networks.

Repeated sessions can influence synaptic plasticity, excitatory inhibitory balance and functional connectivity. Interactions with glutamate, GABA, monoamines and BDNF dependent mechanisms have been proposed, but the antidepressant effect cannot be reduced to a single demonstrated molecular cascade. Response can also be modified by medications, sleep, cognitive activity during stimulation and anatomical characteristics that alter field distribution.

Computational models show that small changes in montage can substantially shift the intracranial field. High definition variants use smaller electrodes and multiple configurations to increase focality, but greater physical focality does not automatically imply greater clinical antidepressant efficacy.

Clinical evidence in depression and interpretation of results

tDCS has been studied in both nonresistant depression and treatment resistant depression. Meta analyses of sham controlled studies find an average benefit of active treatment, but effect size varies and some important trials have produced discordant results. In a noninferiority study against escitalopram, tDCS did not meet the noninferiority criterion despite showing an antidepressant effect compared with sham; this finding underscores that evidence of efficacy does not automatically mean equivalence to a standard antidepressant.

More recent meta analyses continue to show a favorable signal but emphasize heterogeneity, variable study quality and the need to distinguish patients with different levels of treatment resistance. In treatment resistant depression, efficacy appears less certain than in less refractory samples. tDCS should therefore not be presented as a generalized substitute for rTMS or ECT, which have different evidence bases and clinical roles.

An important area of development is supervised home treatment. Randomized studies using remote platforms have shown that controlled protocols can be delivered outside the clinical center when the device incorporates safety procedures, adherence verification and supervision. This model does not justify do it yourself use of unvalidated stimulators: electrodes, dosage, impedance, skin contact and exclusion criteria are integral parts of treatment.

Indications, patient selection and relationship to FDA authorization

Selection should begin with correct diagnosis of the depressive episode, assessment of severity and treatment history. tDCS may be considered in specialist settings and, where authorized, according to the indication of the individual device. There is no universal “tDCS indication” valid for all commercial products.

For the FL-100 device, the US indication approved in 2025 concerns adults with a moderate to severe major depressive episode who are not considered medication resistant, with the option of monotherapy or adjunctive treatment. This is particularly important because many earlier academic studies included different populations and montages. The regulatory label cannot be extended by analogy to homemade tDCS, wellness devices or experimental protocols.

In countries where there is no specific authorization for depression, use should be interpreted in light of guidelines, local regulations, available evidence and clinical governance. In patients with severe suicide risk, catatonia, psychosis or physical deterioration, the need for rapid intervention generally makes treatments with more established acute efficacy more appropriate.

The FDA decision of December 8, 2025 specifically concerns the FL-100 device: treatment of the current moderate or severe major depressive episode, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in adults aged at least 18 years who are not considered refractory to pharmacological therapy. This wording is important because it defines the population and does not generically authorize any tDCS device, any montage or self treatment with nonequivalent devices. In patients with marked treatment resistance, data remain more uncertain and the choice should compare tDCS with options supported by more established evidence, considering severity, urgency, treatments already tried and the feasibility of supervision.

Treatment parameters and monitoring

A tDCS protocol is defined by intensity, duration, electrode area and material, anode and cathode position, current ramp up and ramp down, and the number and frequency of sessions. These parameters determine skin current density and intracranial field distribution. It is therefore scientifically incorrect to describe a dose solely in milliamperes without specifying the rest of the montage.

The sham condition in clinical studies often reproduces the initial tingling sensations through brief current ramps; maintaining blinding is an important methodological issue because irritation and skin sensations may reveal the treatment assignment. In home programs, the procedure should include training, placement verification, skin inspection, error management and a system that prevents unauthorized parameter changes.

Clinical monitoring includes changes in depressive symptoms, suicide risk, possible hypomanic or manic activation, skin effects and tolerability. If there is no benefit, independently increasing intensity or frequency is not appropriate: the overall strategy should be reassessed and, if necessary, treatment should move to options with stronger evidence for the degree of resistance present.

Safety, adverse effects and practical contraindications

The most common adverse effects are tingling, itching, mild burning, local erythema, headache and discomfort during the session. With appropriate electrodes and materials they are generally transient. Burns or skin lesions are rare but can occur with inadequate contact, impedance abnormalities, uneven current distribution or improper device use.

At conventional intensities, tDCS is not a technique that intentionally induces seizures and seizure risk appears very low. This does not eliminate the need for caution in patients with neurological disorders, cranial lesions or electronic implants. Compatibility with implanted devices should be assessed case by case and according to manufacturer information.

Cases of hypomania or mania have been described, particularly in people with bipolar vulnerability or in combination with antidepressants; causality and frequency are difficult to estimate, but monitoring of mood polarity remains necessary. During pregnancy and in other populations underrepresented in studies, the level of evidence is more limited and decisions should be individualized.

The most common events are tingling, itching, erythema, mild burning sensation, headache or fatigue during or after stimulation. Inadequate electrode to skin contact or use of noncompliant parameters can increase the risk of irritation and, rarely, skin lesions; skin preparation, electrode material and impedance control are therefore part of safety. In mood disorders, symptoms of hypomanic or manic activation should also be monitored, particularly when bipolar vulnerability or concomitant treatments are present. The good tolerability observed in studies does not justify do it yourself devices or independent changes in intensity, duration and electrode position.

Current position and future directions

tDCS occupies an evolving position between experimental intervention and regulated clinical treatment. The decisive factor is not simply the presence of a transcranial current but the availability of validated devices, reproducible protocols, monitoring and a clearly defined population. US authorization of the FL-100 makes it obsolete to describe tDCS as an “experimental only” technique in an absolute sense, but it would be equally incorrect to describe it as universally approved for every form of depression.

Major research directions include personalization of the electric field, anatomical and neurophysiological response markers, integration with cognitive tasks and optimization of home programs. The possibility of low cost, scalable neuromodulation is clinically relevant, but the priority remains to determine which patients truly benefit and with which protocol.

In practice, tDCS should be placed within a structured depression care pathway rather than used as a standalone tool. Diagnosis, psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, management of sleep and comorbidities, and risk assessment continue to influence outcomes more than the individual device.

Approval of a supervised home device changes the regulatory landscape but does not resolve open scientific questions. Response predictors, cumulative dose, maintenance, efficacy in highly resistant forms and direct comparison with rTMS and pharmacotherapy still require better definition. Home use may reduce the logistical burden but places greater importance on identity verification, training, adherence, remote monitoring and the ability to recognize adverse events or clinical deterioration. The most plausible prospect is therefore prescribed and monitored home neuromodulation, rather than unsupervised self stimulation; any extension to different populations or protocols requires specific evidence.

Bibliography
1. Lam RW et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2023 Update on Clinical Guidelines for Management of Major Depressive Disorder in Adults. Can J Psychiatry. 69(9), 2024: 641-687.
2. Ren C et al. Transcranial Electrical Stimulation in Treatment of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 8(6), 2025: e2516459.
3. Moshfeghinia R et al. Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation on treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Affect Disord. 406, 2026: 121739.
4. Woodham RD et al. Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation treatment for major depressive disorder: a fully remote phase 2 randomized sham-controlled trial. Nat Med. 31(1), 2025: 87-95.
5. Bikson M et al. US FDA approves home-delivered tDCS for treating depression. Brain Stimul. 19(1), 2026: 103021.
6. Brunoni AR et al. Trial of Electrical Direct-Current Therapy versus Escitalopram for Depression. N Engl J Med. 376(26), 2017: 2523-2533.
7. Brunoni AR et al. The Sertraline vs Electrical Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study: results from a factorial, randomized, controlled trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 70(4), 2013: 383-391.
8. Brunoni AR et al. Response to transcranial direct current stimulation in major depression: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 208(6), 2016: 522-531.
9. Antal A et al. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 128(9), 2017: 1774-1809.
10. Mutz J et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 364, 2019: l1079.
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FL-100 Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Device: Premarket Approval P230024. 2025.