RESUMO

Importance: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is moderately effective for depression when applied by trained staff. It is not known whether self-applied tDCS, combined or not with a digital psychological intervention, is also effective. Objective: To determine whether fully unsupervised home-use tDCS, combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo, is effective for a major depressive episode. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a double-blinded, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial with 3 arms: (1) home-use tDCS plus a digital psychological intervention (double active); (2) home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (tDCS only), and (3) sham home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (double sham). The study was conducted between April 2021 and October 2022 at participants' homes and at Instituto de Psiquiatria do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Included participants were aged 18 to 59 years with major depression and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HDRS-17), score above 16, a minimum of 8 years of education, and access to a smartphone and internet at home. Exclusion criteria were other psychiatric disorders, except for anxiety; neurologic or clinical disorders; and tDCS contraindications. Interventions: tDCS was administered in 2-mA, 30-minute prefrontal sessions for 15 consecutive weekdays (1-mA, 90-second duration for sham) and twice-weekly sessions for 3 weeks. The digital intervention consisted of 46 sessions based on behavioral therapy. Digital placebo was internet browsing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in HDRS-17 score at week 6. Results: Of 837 volunteers screened, 210 participants were enrolled (180 [86%] female; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [9.3] years) and allocated to double active (n = 64), tDCS only (n = 73), or double sham (n = 73). Of the 210 participants enrolled, 199 finished the trial. Linear mixed-effects models did not reveal statistically significant group differences in treatment by time interactions for HDRS-17 scores, and the estimated effect sizes between groups were as follows: double active vs tDCS only (Cohen d, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.48 to 0.58; P = .86), double active vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.73 to 0.34; P = .47), and tDCS only vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.25; 95% CI, -0.76 to 0.27; P = .35). Skin redness and heat or burning sensations were more frequent in the double active and tDCS only groups. One nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in the tDCS only group. Conclusions and Relevance: Unsupervised home-use tDCS combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo was not found to be superior to sham for treatment of a major depressive episode in this trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04889976.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the incidence of suicidal ideation and its associated risk factors in the São Paulo state of ELSA-Brasil cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: During a pre-pandemic ELSA-Brasil onsite assessment in 2016-2018 (wave 3) and a pandemic online assessment in May-July 2020 (wave COVID), we assessed suicidal ideation using the Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R). Single and multi predictor logistic regressions were performed using sociodemographic characteristics, household finance impact during pandemic, presence of previous chronic diseases, alcohol abuse, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), living alone, and previous CMD as predictors. Suicidal ideation incidence was used as outcome. RESULTS: Out of 4191 participants of wave 3, 2117 (50.5%) answered wave COVID. There was a threefold increase in suicide ideation, from 34 (1.8%) to 104 (5.6%).In multiple predictor models, we found that previous CMD (OR 7.17; 95% CI 4.43 - 11.58) and ACE (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.09 - 2.72) increased the odds of incident suicidal ideation. The sociodemographic predictors female sex, younger age and low income were significant risk factors only in the single predictor model. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and supporting individuals who suffered ACE and have a history of mental health disorders. This is especially critical in times of heightened societal stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and supporting individuals who suffered ACE and have a history of mental health disorders. This is especially critical in times of heightened societal stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESUMO

Objective: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has mixed effects for major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms, partially owing to large inter-experimental variability in tDCS protocols and their correlated induced electric fields (E-fields). We investigated whether the E-field strength of distinct tDCS parameters was associated with antidepressant effect. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed with placebo-controlled clinical trials of tDCS enrolling MDD patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 10, 2023. Effect sizes of tDCS protocols were correlated with E-field simulations (SimNIBS) of brain regions of interest (bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC] and bilateral subgenual anterior cingulate cortex [sgACC]). Moderators of tDCS responses were also investigated. Results: A total of 20 studies were included (21 datasets, 1,008 patients), using 11 distinct tDCS protocols. Results revealed a moderate effect for MDD (g = 0.41, 95%CI 0.18-0.64), while cathode position and treatment strategy were found to be moderators of response. A negative association between effect size and tDCS-induced E-field magnitude was seen, with stronger E-fields in the right frontal and medial parts of the DLPFC (targeted by the cathode) leading to smaller effects. No association was found for the left DLPFC and the bilateral sgACC. An optimized tDCS protocol is proposed. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for a standardized tDCS protocol in MDD clinical trials. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022296246.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has mixed effects for major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms, partially owing to large inter-experimental variability in tDCS protocols and their correlated induced electric fields (E-fields). We investigated whether the E-field strength of distinct tDCS parameters was associated with antidepressant effect. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed with placebo-controlled clinical trials of tDCS enrolling MDD patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 10, 2023. Effect sizes of tDCS protocols were correlated with E-field simulations (SimNIBS) of brain regions of interest (bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC] and bilateral subgenual anterior cingulate cortex [sgACC]). Moderators of tDCS responses were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included (21 datasets, 1,008 patients), using 11 distinct tDCS protocols. Results revealed a moderate effect for MDD (g = 0.41, 95%CI 0.18-0.64), while cathode position and treatment strategy were found to be moderators of response. A negative association between effect size and tDCS-induced E-field magnitude was seen, with stronger E-fields in the right frontal and medial parts of the DLPFC (targeted by the cathode) leading to smaller effects. No association was found for the left DLPFC and the bilateral sgACC. An optimized tDCS protocol is proposed. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need for a standardized tDCS protocol in MDD clinical trials.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been increasingly used over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) to enhance working memory (WM) performance. Notwithstanding, NIBS protocols have shown either small or inconclusive cognitive effects on healthy and neuropsychiatric samples. Therefore, we assessed working memory performance and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), and both therapies combined vs placebo over the neuronavigated left DLPFC of healthy participants. Twenty-four subjects were included to randomly undergo four sessions of NIBS, once a week: tDCS alone, iTBS alone, combined protocol and placebo. The 2-back task and an adverse effect scale were applied after each NIBS session. Results revealed a significantly faster response for iTBS (b= -21.49, p= 0.04), but not for tDCS and for the interaction tDCS vs. iTBS (b= 13.67, p= 0.26 and b= 40.5, p= 0.20, respectively). No changes were observed for accuracy and no serious adverse effects were found among protocols. Although tolerable, an absence of synergistic effects for the combined protocol was seen. Nonetheless, future trials accessing different outcomes for the combined protocols, as well as studies investigating iTBS over the left DLPFC for cognition and exploring sources of variability for tDCS are encouraged.

RESUMO

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a re-emerging non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been used in animal models and human trials aimed to elucidate neurophysiology and behavior interactions. It delivers subthreshold electrical currents to neuronal populations that shift resting membrane potential either toward depolarization or hyperpolarization, depending on stimulation parameters and neuronal orientation in relation to the induced electric field (EF). Although the resulting cerebral EFs are not strong enough to induce action potentials, spontaneous neuronal firing in response to inputs from other brain areas is influenced by tDCS. Additionally, tDCS induces plastic synaptic changes resembling long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD) that outlast the period of stimulation. Such properties place tDCS as an appealing intervention for the treatment of diverse neuropsychiatric disorders. Although findings of clinical trials are preliminary for most studied conditions, there is already convincing evidence regarding its efficacy for unipolar depression. The main advantages of tDCS are the absence of serious or intolerable side effects and the portability of the devices, which might lead in the future to home-use applications and improved patient care. This chapter provides an up-to-date overview of a number tDCS relevant topics such as mechanisms of action, contemporary applications and safety. Furthermore, we propose ways to further develop tDCS research.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation intervention investigated for the treatment of depression. Clinical results have been heterogeneous, partly due to the variability of electric field (EF) strength in the brain owing to interindividual differences in head anatomy. Therefore, we investigated whether EF strength was correlated with behavioral changes in 16 depressed patients using simulated electric fields in real patient data from a controlled clinical trial. We hypothesized that EF strength in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), brain regions implicated in depression pathophysiology, would be associated with changes in depression, mood and anxiety scores. SimNIBS were used to simulate individual electric fields based on the MRI structural T1-weighted brain scans of depressed subjects. Linear regression models showed, at the end of the acute treatment phase, that simulated EF strength was inversely associated with negative affect in the bilateral ACC (left: ß = - 160.463, CI [- 291.541, - 29.385], p = 0.021; right: ß = - 189.194, CI [- 289.479, - 88.910], p = 0.001) and DLPFC (left: ß = - 93.210, CI [- 154.960, - 31.461], p = 0.006; right: ß = - 82.564, CI [- 142.867, - 22.262], p = 0.011) and with depression scores in the left ACC (ß = - 156.91, CI [- 298.51, - 15.30], p = 0.033). No association between positive affect or anxiety scores, and simulated EF strength in the investigated brain regions was found. To conclude, our findings show preliminary evidence that EF strength simulations might be associated with further behavioral changes in depressed patients, unveiling a potential mechanism of action for tDCS. Further studies should investigate whether individualization of EF strength in key brain regions impact clinical response.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as monotherapy has been increasingly used to enhance the activity of brain networks. However, it is unclear whether a combination of distinct NIBS approaches could enhance prefrontal cortical (PFC) activity. OBJECTIVE: We propose to investigate the combined and standalone effects of two NIBS modalities on the PFC through a working memory task, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and salivary cortisol. We hypothesize that the combined protocol will provoke greater changes in the collected measures compared to the remining protocols. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, full-factorial design will be conducted. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) will be investigated over four different sessions (sham tDCS + sham iTBS, anodal tDCS + sham iTBS, anodal tDCS + active iTBS and sham tDCS + active iTBS) in 30 healthy adult volunteers. A 99mTc-ethylene cysteine dimer (99mTC-ECD) will be administered during the NIBS session and neuroimaging will be acquired within one hour. Salivary cortisol will be collected before and after each session and an n-back working memory task will be applied after the end of each NIBS session. The outcomes will be cerebral perfusion alterations (99mTC-ECD SPECT), accuracy and reaction time in the n-back task, and changes in salivary cortisol level. CONCLUSION: The results from this trial can guide future therapeutic protocols for NIBS treatments stimulating the PFC by demonstrating that the combination of NIBS techniques is feasible, tolerable, and can lead to greater enhancement of PFC activity.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent and debilitating condition. First-line treatments include antidepressants and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT). However, several patients present treatment-resistance and/or adverse effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique, is an effective alternative for MDD. AREAS COVERED: We hereby review a portable tDCS device designed to be combined with a cognitive-behavioral intervention. This home-use device was developed by Flow Neuroscience™ and was recently approved in the UK and European Union. We discuss present evidence on tDCS efficacy and safety, both as a monotherapy and as a combined treatment. Moreover, we show a computer modeling tDCS procedure based on Flow parameters and montage. EXPERT OPINION: Electric field simulations revealed that Flow's tDCS device targets prefrontal cortical areas involved in MDD pathophysiology. In addition, the safety and efficacy profile revealed from prior tDCS studies support its use in depression. Finally, combining tDCS with cognitive-behavioral interventions might further enhance overall efficacy, although this aspect should be investigated in upcoming randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown mixed results for depression treatment. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials using tDCS to improve depressive symptoms. METHODS: A systematic review was performed from the first date available to January 06, 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and additional sources. We included randomized, sham-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling participants with an acute depressive episode and compared the efficacy of active versus sham tDCS, including association with other interventions. The primary outcome was the Hedges' g for continuous depression scores; secondary outcomes included odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT) for response, remission, and acceptability. Random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were explored via metaregression, sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and bias assessment. RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (25 datasets, 1,092 participants), most (57%) presenting a low risk of bias. Active tDCS was superior to sham regarding endpoint depression scores (k = 25, g = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.70), and also achieved superior response (k = 18, 33.3% vs. 16.56%, OR = 2.28 [1.52-3.42], NNT = 6) and remission (k = 18, 19.12% vs. 9.78%, OR = 2.12 [1.42-3.16], NNT = 10.7) rates. Moreover, active tDCS was as acceptable as sham. No risk of publication bias was identified. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that effect sizes are basically unchanged since total sample reached 439 participants. CONCLUSIONS: TDCS is modestly effective in treating depressive episodes. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs are warranted.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Objective: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), are increasingly being used to treat mental disorders, particularly major depression. The aim of this comprehensive review is to summarize the main advances, limitations, and perspectives of the field. Methods: We searched PubMed and other databases from inception to July 2017 for articles, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluating the use of NIBS in psychiatric disorders. Results: We reviewed the mechanisms of action, safety, tolerability, efficacy, and relevant clinical parameters of NIBS. Repetitive TMS is already an established technique for the treatment of depression, and there is theoretically room for further methodological development towards a high-end therapeutic intervention. In contrast, tDCS is a technically easier method and therefore potentially suitable for wider clinical use. However the evidence of its antidepressant efficacy is less sound, and a recent study found tDCS to be inferior to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Clinical trials using rTMS for other mental disorders produced mixed findings, whereas tDCS use has not been sufficiently appraised. Conclusion: The most promising results of NIBS have been obtained for depression. These techniques excel in safety and tolerability, although their efficacy still warrants improvement.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), are increasingly being used to treat mental disorders, particularly major depression. The aim of this comprehensive review is to summarize the main advances, limitations, and perspectives of the field. METHODS: We searched PubMed and other databases from inception to July 2017 for articles, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluating the use of NIBS in psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: We reviewed the mechanisms of action, safety, tolerability, efficacy, and relevant clinical parameters of NIBS. Repetitive TMS is already an established technique for the treatment of depression, and there is theoretically room for further methodological development towards a high-end therapeutic intervention. In contrast, tDCS is a technically easier method and therefore potentially suitable for wider clinical use. However the evidence of its antidepressant efficacy is less sound, and a recent study found tDCS to be inferior to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Clinical trials using rTMS for other mental disorders produced mixed findings, whereas tDCS use has not been sufficiently appraised. CONCLUSION: The most promising results of NIBS have been obtained for depression. These techniques excel in safety and tolerability, although their efficacy still warrants improvement.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although several studies indicate that placebo response is large to antidepressant pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder (MDD), no updated meta-analysis has quantified the magnitude of the placebo (sham) response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in MDD yet. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on this issue in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with MDD; and to explore potential moderators. METHODOLOGY: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception up to March 15, 2017 for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of any rTMS modality compared to sham intervention in participants with acute depressive episodes. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to estimate risks. We estimated the placebo effect size (Hedges's g, random-effects model) response using placebo groups baseline and endpoint depressive symptom scores. Meta-regressions have been employed to explore potential moderators of response. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met eligibility criteria (N=1328; mean age, 47years; 57% females). Placebo response was large (g=0.8, 95% CI=0.65-0.95, p<0.01) regardless of the modality of intervention. Placebo response was directly associated with publication year and depression improvement of the active group, and inversely associated with higher levels of treatment-resistant depression. Other moderators, including gender, age, and stimulator type, were not associated with the outcome. Overall, 24.6%, 67.2%, and 8.2% of studies had an overall low, unclear, and high bias risk, respectively. CONCLUSION: Placebo response in rTMS depression trials was large and associated with depression improvement of the active treatment group. Such result suggests that excluding placebo responders with a run-in phase may not confer advantage since response to 'active' rTMS may decrease as well. Moreover, placebo response may be a component of therapeutic response to rTMS in MDD. In addition, placebo response increase over time could indicate improvement in rTMS trial designs, including better sham rTMS methods.

Assuntos

RESUMO

IMPORTANCE: Although several strategies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have been investigated as treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), their comparative efficacy and acceptability is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To establish the relative efficacy and acceptability of the different modalities of rTMS used for MDD by performing a network meta-analysis, obtaining a clinically meaningful treatment hierarchy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched up until October 1, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared any rTMS intervention with sham or another rTMS intervention. Trials performing less than 10 sessions were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standard forms for data extraction and quality assessment. Random-effects, standard pairwise, and network meta-analyses were performed to synthesize data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rates and acceptability (dropout rate). Remission was the secondary outcome. Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Eighty-one studies (4233 patients, 59.1% women, mean age of 46 years) were included. The interventions more effective than sham were priming low-frequency (OR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.70-12.77), bilateral (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.37-6.60), high-frequency (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.24-4.21), θ-burst stimulation (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.07-6.05), and low-frequency (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.52-3.68) rTMS. Novel rTMS interventions (accelerated, synchronized, and deep rTMS) were not more effective than sham. Except for θ-burst stimulation vs sham, similar results were obtained for remission. All interventions were at least as acceptable as sham. The estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that priming low-frequency and bilateral rTMS might be the most efficacious and acceptable interventions among all rTMS strategies. However, results were imprecise and relatively few trials were available for interventions other than low-frequency, high-frequency, and bilateral rTMS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few differences were found in clinical efficacy and acceptability between the different rTMS modalities, favoring to some extent bilateral rTMS and priming low-frequency rTMS. These findings warrant the design of larger RCTs investigating the potential of these approaches in the short-term treatment of MDD. Current evidence cannot support novel rTMS interventions as a treatment for MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: PROSPERO CRD42015019855.

Assuntos