Efficacy of Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Provoked Vestibulodynia : a Triple Blind Randomized Controlled Trial (PVD/tDCS)

May 1, 2017 updated by: Mélanie Morin, Université de Sherbrooke
Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is the most common form of vulvodynia and despite its high prevalence and important sexual, conjugal and psychological deleterious repercussions, effective evidence-based interventions remain limited. For a high proportion of women, significant pain persists despite the currently available treatments. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) was shown to be effective in various chronic pain conditions. So far, only one case report study has shown significant pain reduction in women with vulvodynia. The main goal of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in women with PVD compared to sham tDCS. Forty women diagnosed with PVD, by a gynecologist following a standardized protocol will be randomized to either active or sham tDCS for ten 20 minute sessions of 2 mA stimulation over a 2-week period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, after treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome is pain during intercourse assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS). Secondary measurements focus on sexual function, vestibular pain sensitivity, psychological distress, treatment satisfaction and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). The investigators expect that active tDCS treatment will significantly reduce pain during intercourse (post-treatment and 3-month follow-up compared to pre-treatment assessment). This trial will provide important information for determining the efficacy of a novel and promising intervention for women with PVD.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
40

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Canada
    • Quebec
      • Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 5N4
        • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
      • Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 5N4
        • Centre hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbroke

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

17 years to 45 years (Child, Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Experience moderate to severe pain in at least 90% of attempted sexual intercourse;
  2. Experience moderate to severe pain during cotton swab test, in one or more regions of the vestibule (minimum of 5/10 on a subjective numeric scale of pain intensity);
  3. Pain limited to the vestibule during vaginal intercourse and during activities exerting pressure on the vestibule (tampon insertion, tight jeans or pants, cycling, horseback riding);
  4. Presence of PVD for at least 6 months and diagnosed according to the standardized gynecological examination protocol by one of our staff gynecologists;
  5. Have a stable sexual partner with regular sexual activity including penetration.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Other pelvic pathology associated with pelvic pain (e.g., deep dyspareunia);
  2. Chronic pain conditions (e.g. fibromyalgia, low back pain, chronic migraines);
  3. Use of medication that can influence the perception of pain (eg analgesic, opioids, antiepileptic, muscle relaxant);
  4. Pregnancy for less than one year and breastfeeding;
  5. Anterior vulvar or vaginal surgery;
  6. Refusal to refrain from other treatments one month prior to first treatment study until the last 3-month follow-up assessment;
  7. Important urogynecologic symptoms (urinary or anal incontinence, urinary urgency, pelvic organ prolapse, active urinary tract or vaginal infection or earlier in the last 3 months, etc.);
  8. Contraindications to tDCS (e.g. metallic implant in or near the skull, history of epilepsy, pacemaker);
  9. Previously received tDCS treatment.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Intervention
Participants will receive active transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) for ten 20 minute sessions of 2 mA stimulation over a 2-week period.
Device: Active tDCS or Sham tDCS
tDCS is a painless technique which consists in applying low direct-current through electrodes (one electrode serving as an anode, the other as a cathode) placed on the scalp to target the cerebral cortex. In patients with chronic pain, the anode is commonly placed over the motor cortex (M1) (Valeriani et al., 1999).
Other Names:
  • neuroConn; Model no: 0008; Serial no:0169
Sham Comparator: Placebo
Participants will receive sham transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) for ten 20 minute sessions of 2 mA stimulation over a 2-week period.
Device: Active tDCS or Sham tDCS
tDCS is a painless technique which consists in applying low direct-current through electrodes (one electrode serving as an anode, the other as a cathode) placed on the scalp to target the cerebral cortex. In patients with chronic pain, the anode is commonly placed over the motor cortex (M1) (Valeriani et al., 1999).
Other Names:
  • neuroConn; Model no: 0008; Serial no:0169

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain during intercourse (Numeric rating scale)
Time Frame: Change in the NRS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Pain during intercourse will be assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 is no pain at all, and 10 is the worst pain ever. This method for measuring pain has been shown to detect significant treatment effects in women with PVD and demonstrates a significant positive correlation with other pain intensity measures. Pain during intercourse is the main symptom of PVD and the one that most interferes with quality of life, hence the most relevant measure of functional outcome (Bergeron et al., 2008; Bergeron et al., 2001; Morin et al., 2010; Morin et al., 2011).
Change in the NRS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain (McGill-Melzack questionnaire)
Time Frame: Change in the McGill-Melzack scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
The McGill-Melzack questionnaire allows the assessment of sensory, affective and evaluative components of pain. This world-renowned questionnaire, studied for its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change, is commonly used in RCTs (Bergeron et al., 2001; Melzack, 1975; Davidoff et al., 1987; Hays et al., 1994; Bansal et al., 2009; Moy et al., 2011; Foster et al., 2010).
Change in the McGill-Melzack scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Vestibular sensitivity (algometer)
Time Frame: Change in the pain threshold and pain tolerance scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
A gradual pressure (1 to 1000 g) will be applied to three distinct points of the vestibule at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions (Cyr et al., 2014). Each of these pressure points will be applied randomly (e.g. 3,6,9 or 3,9,6 or 6,9,3.). During this procedure, each participant will be asked to indicate when they start to feel pain (pain threshold) and subsequently the maximal pressure that can be tolerated (pain tolerance). Pain intensity is assessed throughout the test using a Computerized Visual analog scale (CoVas). This assessment has shown good reliability and validity (Cyr et al., 2014).
Change in the pain threshold and pain tolerance scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)
Time Frame: Change in the FSFI scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) is a multidimensional measure of sexual function evaluating desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction and pain. In addition to good psychometric properties (reliability, internal consistency and responsiveness to change (Rosen et al., 2000; Goldfinger et al, 2009), normative data are available for this questionnaire suggesting clinical level of dysfunctions (Wiegel et al., 2005).
Change in the FSFI scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)
Time Frame: Change in the PCS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Pain catastrophizing will be assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Sullivan, Bishop, & Pivik, 1995), which consists of 13 items measuring exaggerated negative thoughts and feelings about the meaning of pain. Items are scored on a 5-point scale with the end points (0) not at all and (4) all the time. The PCS is a reliable and valid measure that has demonstrated a stable factorial structure across clinical and general populations, including a French population (French et al., 2005; Osman et al., 2000; Sullivan, et al., 1995).
Change in the PCS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Spielberg State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (IASTA)
Time Frame: Change in the IASTA state and IASTA trait scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Anxiety will be assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI - (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970); ASTA - (Gauthier & Bouchard, 1993)). The STAI is a 40-item, well-known and widely used measure of state and trait anxiety that has demonstrated very good psychometric properties (Cronbach's alpha State = .93, Trait = .97) in various clinical and non-clinical samples including pain populations (Gauthier & Bouchard, 1993; Greenberg & Burns, 2003; Rule & Traver, 1983; Tanaka-Masumi & Kameoka, 1986).
Change in the IASTA state and IASTA trait scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Beck Depression Inventory questionnaire (BDI-II)
Time Frame: Change in the BDI scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Depression or depression symptoms will be measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). The BDI-II is comprised of 21 items, with scores for most items ranging from 0 (low intensity) to 3 (high intensity) (Beck, Steer & Brown, 1996; Beck, Steer & Garvin, 1988). This measure of depression has been validated for use in chronic pain populations (Turner & Romano, 1984).
Change in the BDI scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20)
Time Frame: Change in the PASS-20 scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
The Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20), evaluating fear of pain, also shows good psychometric properties (Coons, Hadjistavropoulos & Asmundson, 2004; McCracken & Dhingra, 2002).
Change in the PASS-20 scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Patient's global impression of change (PGIC)
Time Frame: Change in the PGIC scores from 2-week post-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Patient self-reported improvement [scale of 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)] and treatment satisfaction [scale of 0 (worse) to 10 (complete cure)] will be measured at the 2-week post-treatment and 3-month post-treatment structured interview in order to assess the clinical significance of results.
Change in the PGIC scores from 2-week post-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction scale (GMSS)
Time Frame: Change in the GMSS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment
Sexual satisfaction will be assessed using the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction scale, which consists of 5 items assessing global sexual satisfaction. Internal consistency of this scale is high (alpha = 0.90), as is test-retest reliability (r = 0.84) (Lawrance & Byers, 1998).
Change in the GMSS scores from pre- to 2-week post-treatment, and from pre-treatment to 3-month post-treatment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Université de Sherbrooke

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
November 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 1, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
November 1, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
September 4, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 4, 2015

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 7, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
May 2, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 1, 2017

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
May 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 14-169

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings