Treatment-emergent mania/hypomania during antidepressant treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in the Treatment of Youth Depression: Integrating Literature Review Insights in a Pilot Clinical Trial

Background: Youth (ages 16-25) is a key window for mental health interventions, as depression rates significantly increase during this developmental stage. However, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) application in youth depression remains underexplored. To reduce the uncertainty of a future trial, we conducted a review and a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of tDCS for youth depression. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, the first part of this study was a review across databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), WanFang Data, Chinese Medical Journal, and clinical trial registries up to 20 November 2024, on tDCS treatment for youth depression. The second part of this study was a double-blind pilot RCT assessing feasibility, by comparing active tDCS (five daily 30 min 2 mA anodal tDCS applications over the left dorsolateral-pre-frontal-cortex (DLPFC) with sham tDCS. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, data collection, attendance, retention and randomisation. Outcomes also included depression severity using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), safety, tolerability, acceptability, and adequacy of blinding. Mann-Whitney U tests were used for between-group comparison. Results: Fourteen eligible studies were identified, with a pooled HDRS reduction of -9.6 (95% CI: -11.2 to -8.1, p < 0.001), though high risks of bias indicated a research gap. Using parameters derived from the review, we conducted a pilot RCT in which 20 youths were screened and 8 were randomised (aged 16-24; 3 females, 5 males). All randomised participants completed their assigned sessions without dropout or protocol discontinuations. Blinding was adequate, and participants' willingness to engage improved over time. Both groups showed reductions in HDRS, with a greater mean reduction in the active group (-4.75 ± 2.96) compared to the sham group (-3.75 ± 3.78). No serious adverse events occurred, with only mild headaches and tingling reported. The tolerability profile was comparable. However, the decentralised administration of sessions may have introduced inconsistent tDCS applications. Conclusions: This review highlights a lack of RCTs on tDCS for youth depression. Our pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of a sham-controlled design in youth depression, justifying larger-scale trials to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in this population.

Multichannel tDCS with Advanced Targeting for Major Depressive Disorder: A Tele-Supervised At-Home Pilot Study

Introduction

Proof-of-principle human studies suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may improve depression severity. This open-label multicenter study tested remotely supervised multichannel tDCS delivered at home in patients (N=35) with major depressive disorder (MDD). The primary aim was to assess the feasibility and safety of our protocol. As an exploratory aim, we evaluated therapeutic efficacy: the primary efficacy measure was the median percent change from baseline to the end of the 4-week post-treatment follow-up period in the observer-rated Montgomery-Asberg Depression Mood Rating Scale (MADRS).

Methods

Participants received 37 at-home stimulation sessions (30 minutes each) of specifically designed multichannel tDCS targeting the left DLPFC administered over eight weeks (4 weeks of daily treatments plus 4 weeks of taper), with a follow-up period of 4 weeks following the final stimulation session. The stimulation montage (electrode positions and currents) was optimized by employing computational models of the electric field generated by multichannel tDCS using available structural data from a similar population (group optimization). Conducted entirely remotely, the study employed the MADRS for assessment at baseline, at weeks 4 and 8 during treatment, and at 4-week follow-up visits.

Results

34 patients (85.3% women) with a mean age of 59 years, a diagnosis of MDD according to DSM-5 criteria, and a MADRS score ≥20 at the time of study enrolment completed all study visits. At baseline, the mean time since MDD diagnosis was 24.0 (SD 19.1) months. Concerning compliance, 85% of the participants (n=29) completed the complete course of 37 stimulation sessions at home, while 97% completed at least 36 sessions. No detrimental effects were observed, including suicidal ideation and/or behavior. The study observed a median MADRS score reduction of 64.5% (48.6, 72.4) 4 weeks post-treatment (Hedge's g = -3.1). We observed a response rate (≥ 50% improvement in MADRS scores) of 72.7% (n=24) from baseline to the last visit 4 weeks post-treatment. Secondary measures reflected similar improvements.

Conclusions

These results suggest that remotely supervised and supported multichannel home-based tDCS is safe and feasible, and antidepressant efficacy motivates further appropriately controlled clinical studies.

Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence

Chronic pain constitutes one of the most common chronic complaints that people experience. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant impact on individuals' well-being and psychosocial health and the economy of healthcare systems as well. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic modalities, treatment of chronic pain can be challenging. Only about 30% of individuals with non-cancer chronic pain achieve improvement from standard pharmacological treatment. Therefore, numerous therapeutic approaches were proposed as a potential treatment for chronic pain including non-opioid pharmacological agents, nerve blocks, acupuncture, cannabidiol, stem cells, exosomes, and neurostimulation techniques. Although some neurostimulation methods such as spinal cord stimulation were successfully introduced into clinical practice as a therapy for chronic pain, the current evidence for brain stimulation efficacy in the treatment of chronic pain remains unclear. Hence, this narrative literature review aimed to give an up-to-date overview of brain stimulation methods, including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation as a potential treatment for chronic pain.

Boosting psychological change: Combining non-invasive brain stimulation with psychotherapy

Mental health disorders and substance use disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and one of the most important challenges for public health systems. While evidence-based psychotherapy is generally pursued to address mental health challenges, psychological change is often hampered by non-adherence to treatments, relapses, and practical barriers (e.g., time, cost). In recent decades, Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have emerged as promising tools to directly target dysfunctional neural circuitry and promote long-lasting plastic changes. While the therapeutic efficacy of NIBS protocols for mental illnesses has been established, neuromodulatory interventions might also be employed to support the processes activated by psychotherapy. Indeed, combining psychotherapy with NIBS might help tailor the treatment to the patient's unique characteristics and therapeutic goal, and would allow more direct control of the neuronal changes induced by therapy. Herein, we overview emerging evidence on the use of NIBS to enhance the psychotherapeutic effect, while highlighting the next steps in advancing clinical and research methods toward personalized intervention approaches.

Brain stimulation and other biological non-pharmacological interventions in mental disorders: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

The degree of efficacy, safety, quality, and certainty of meta-analytic evidence of biological non-pharmacological treatments in mental disorders is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review (PubMed/Cochrane Library/PsycINFO-04-Jul-2021, PROSPERO/CRD42020158827) for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), electro-convulsive therapy (ECT), and others. Co-primary outcomes were standardized mean differences (SMD) of disease-specific symptoms, and acceptability (for all-cause discontinuation). Evidence was assessed with AMSTAR/AMSTAR-Content/GRADE.

RESULTS

We selected 102 meta-analyses. Effective interventions compared to sham were in depressive disorders: ECT (SMD=0.91/GRADE=moderate), TMS (SMD=0.51/GRADE=moderate), tDCS (SMD=0.46/GRADE=low), DBS (SMD=0.42/GRADE=very low), light therapy (SMD=0.41/GRADE=low); schizophrenia: ECT (SMD=0.88/GRADE=moderate), tDCS (SMD=0.45/GRADE=very low), TMS (prefrontal theta-burst, SMD=0.58/GRADE=low; left-temporoparietal, SMD=0.42/GRADE=low); substance use disorder: TMS (high frequency-dorsolateral-prefrontal-deep (SMD=1.16/GRADE=moderate), high frequency-left dorsolateral-prefrontal (SMD=0.77/GRADE=very low); OCD: DBS (SMD=0.89/GRADE=moderate), TMS (SMD=0.64/GRADE=very low); PTSD: TMS (SMD=0.46/GRADE=moderate); generalized anxiety disorder: TMS (SMD=0.68/GRADE=low); ADHD: tDCS (SMD=0.23/GRADE=moderate); autism: tDCS (SMD=0.97/GRADE=very low). No significant differences for acceptability emerged. Median AMSTAR/AMSTAR-Content was 8/2 (suggesting high-quality meta-analyses/low-quality RCTs), GRADE low.

DISCUSSION

Despite limited certainty, biological non-pharmacological interventions are effective and safe for numerous mental conditions. Results inform future research, and guidelines.

FUNDING

None.

The Effects of a Single Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Session on Impulsivity and Risk Among a Sample of Adult Recreational Cannabis Users

Individuals with substance use disorders exhibit risk-taking behaviors, potentially leading to negative consequences and difficulty maintaining recovery. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have yielded mixed effects on risk-taking among healthy controls. Given the importance of risk-taking behaviors among substance-using samples, this study aimed to examine the effects of tDCS on risk-taking among a sample of adults using cannabis. Using a double-blind design, 27 cannabis users [M(SD) age = 32.48 (1.99), 41% female] were randomized, receiving one session of active or sham tDCS over the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Stimulation parameters closely followed prior studies with anodal right dlPFC and cathodal left dlPFC stimulation. Risk-taking-assessed via a modified Cambridge Gambling Task-was measured before and during tDCS. Delay and probability discounting tasks were assessed before and after stimulation. No significant effects of stimulation on risk-taking behavior were found. However, participants chose the less risky option ∼86% of the trials before stimulation which potentially contributed to ceiling effects. These results contradict one prior study showing increased risk-taking among cannabis users following tDCS. There was a significant increase in delay discounting of a $1000 delayed reward during stimulation for the sham group only, but no significant effects for probability discounting. The current study adds to conflicting and inconclusive literature on tDCS and cognition among substance-using samples. In conclusion, results suggest the ineffectiveness of single session dlPFC tDCS using an established stimulation protocol on risk-taking, although ceiling effects at baseline may have also prevented behavior change following tDCS.

Functional neuroanatomy of mania

Mania, the diagnostic hallmark of bipolar disorder, is an episodic disturbance of mood, sleep, behavior, and perception. Improved understanding of the neurobiology of mania is expected to allow for novel avenues to address current challenges in its diagnosis and treatment. Previous research focusing on the impairment of functional neuronal circuits and brain networks has resulted in heterogenous findings, possibly due to a focus on bipolar disorder and its several phases, rather than on the unique context of mania. Here we present a comprehensive overview of the evidence regarding the functional neuroanatomy of mania. Our interpretation of the best available evidence is consistent with a convergent model of lateralized circuit dysfunction in mania, with hypoactivity of the ventral prefrontal cortex in the right hemisphere, and hyperactivity of the amygdala, basal ganglia, and anterior cingulate cortex in the left hemisphere of the brain. Clarification of dysfunctional neuroanatomic substrates of mania may contribute not only to improve understanding of the neurobiology of bipolar disorder overall, but also highlights potential avenues for new circuit-based therapeutic approaches in the treatment of mania.

Application of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Psychiatry

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulation technique, which noninvasively alters cortical excitability via weak polarizing currents between two electrodes placed on the scalp. Since it is comparably easy to handle, cheap to use and relatively well tolerated, tDCS has gained increasing interest in recent years. Based on well-known behavioral effects, a number of clinical studies have been performed in populations including patients with major depressive disorder followed by schizophrenia and substance use disorders, in sum with heterogeneous results with respect to efficacy. Nevertheless, the potential of tDCS must not be underestimated since it could be further improved by systematically investigating the various stimulation parameters to eventually increase clinical efficacy. The present article briefly explains the underlying physiology of tDCS, summarizes typical stimulation protocols and then reviews clinical efficacy for various psychiatric disorders as well as prevalent adverse effects. Future developments include combined and more complex interactions of tDCS with pharmacological or psychotherapeutic interventions. In particular, using computational models to individualize stimulation protocols, considering state dependency and applying closed-loop technologies will pave the way for tDCS-based personalized interventions as well as the development of home treatment settings promoting the role of tDCS as an effective treatment option for patients with mental health problems.

Is tDCS a potential first line treatment for major depression?

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel treatment option for major depression which could be provided as a first-line treatment. tDCS is a non-invasive form of transcranial stimulation which changes cortical tissue excitability by applying a weak (0.5-2 mA) direct current via scalp electrodes. Anodal and cathodal stimulation leads to depolarisation and hyperpolarisation, respectively, and cumulative effects are observed with repeated sessions. The montage in depression most often involves anodal stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Rates of clinical response, remission, and improvements in depressive symptoms following a course of active tDCS are greater in comparison to a course of placebo sham-controlled tDCS. In particular, the largest treatment effects are evident in first episode and recurrent major depression, while minimal effects have been observed in treatment-resistant depression. The proposed mechanism is neuroplasticity at the cellular and molecular level. Alterations in neural responses have been found at the stimulation site as well as subcortically in prefrontal-amygdala connectivity. A possible mediating effect could be cognitive control in emotion dysregulation. Additional beneficial effects on cognitive impairments have been reported, which would address an important unmet need. The tDCS device is portable and can be used at home. Clinical trials are required to establish the efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of home-based tDCS treatment and mechanisms.

Neuro-Cardiac-Guided TMS (NCG TMS): A replication and extension study

Neuro-Cardiac-Guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (NCG-TMS) was studied for its potential to specifically target the frontal-vagal network. Previous research demonstrated that prefrontal stimulation led to significant heartrate slowing. We aimed to replicate these results in a larger sample and extend the findings to investigate dose-response relationships, reproducibility and stimulation frequency (10 Hz and intermittent theta burst (iTBS)). Data of forty-five healthy controls were analyzed, of which 28 received 10 Hz TMS (NCG-TMS) and 27 iTBS (NCG-iTBS; 10 received both protocols) at different stimulation sites according to the 10-20-EEG system. NCG-TMS yielded a relative heartrate deceleration at the F3/4 coil position replicating earlier studies. Both internal consistency and dose-response relationships were found. For NCG-iTBS adverse events were reported and topography for frontal-vagal activation was more lateralised relative to NCG-TMS. These results indicate that we were able to transsynaptically stimulate the frontal-vagal network and that excitability thresholds for the prefrontal cortex may differ relative to motor cortex.

Efficacy and Safety of tDCS and tACS in Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Factorial Placebo-Controlled Study Design

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) are regarded as promising antidepressant treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of tDCS, tACS, escitalopram, and placebo/sham stimulation controls.

DESIGN

Randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

METHODS

Sample sizes were calculated based on data from previous similar studies. Eligible non-treatment-resistant-depressive outpatient subjects with moderate-to-severe depression (HRDS ≥17) are randomized to receive (1) tDCS + placebo; (2) tACS + placebo; (3) escitalopram + placebo; or (4) sham stimulation + placebo. The intensity of electricity is 2 mA, lasting for 30 minutes over two consecutive working days (10 sessions in total). The medication lasts for 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the response rates within 6 weeks (week 6 is also the endpoint of the study), and secondary outcome measures included changes in other clinical measurements. Safety and acceptability are measured by adverse event rates and dropout rates. Exploring outcome consist of the performance of cognitive battery as well as neurophysiology results.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first double-blind controlled study comparing tDCS, tACS, and clinically used antidepressants, which will provide further evidence for their efficacy and safety in possible clinical applications.

Romance Scams: Romantic Imagery and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Love has an enormous effect on mental health. One does not need an actual romantic relationship to be in love. Indeed, romantic love can be built upon without frequent or real-life encounters, such as with a stranger from a matching website. With the advancement of the Internet and the influence of coronavirus disease, it is believed that these distant romantic relationships and related romance scams are burgeoning. Often, the victims of scams keep emotionally attached to the scammer even after the lie is revealed, which is hypothesized to be attributed to the aberrantly exaggerated romantic imagery of the victims. It is observed that many victims suffer from symptoms similar to a post-traumatic stress disorder, and some even consider suicide. However, there is scant literature on this topic. In this article, it is further postulated that the aberrant romantic imagery might be associated with impulsive acts such as suicide once the ideal but fake romantic relationship is dissolved. Thereafter, it is further speculated that manipulation of the visual network, possibly by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), might be a promising treatment.

Mapping mania symptoms based on focal brain damage

BACKGROUNDAlthough mania is characteristic of bipolar disorder, it can also occur following focal brain damage. Such cases may provide unique insight into brain regions responsible for mania symptoms and identify therapeutic targets.METHODSLesion locations associated with mania were identified using a systematic literature search (n = 41) and mapped onto a common brain atlas. The network of brain regions functionally connected to each lesion location was computed using normative human connectome data (resting-state functional MRI, n = 1000) and contrasted with those obtained from lesion locations not associated with mania (n = 79). Reproducibility was assessed using independent cohorts of mania lesions derived from clinical chart review (n = 15) and of control lesions (n = 490). Results were compared with brain stimulation sites previously reported to induce or relieve mania symptoms.RESULTSLesion locations associated with mania were heterogeneous and no single brain region was lesioned in all, or even most, cases. However, these lesion locations showed a unique pattern of functional connectivity to the right orbitofrontal cortex, right inferior temporal gyrus, and right frontal pole. This connectivity profile was reproducible across independent lesion cohorts and aligned with the effects of therapeutic brain stimulation on mania symptoms.CONCLUSIONBrain lesions associated with mania are characterized by a specific pattern of brain connectivity that lends insight into localization of mania symptoms and potential therapeutic targets.FUNDINGFundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Harvard Medical School DuPont-Warren Fellowship, Portuguese national funds from FCT and Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, Child Neurology Foundation Shields Research, Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation, Nancy Lurie Marks Foundation, Mather's Foundation, and the NIH.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in depressive episodes

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.

Neurocognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in unipolar and bipolar depression: Findings from an international randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been found to have antidepressant effects and may have beneficial neurocognitive effects. However, prior research has produced an unclear understanding of the neurocognitive effects of repeated exposure to tDCS. The study's aim was to determine the neurocognitive effects following tDCS treatment in participants with unipolar or bipolar depression.

METHOD

The study was a triple-masked, randomized, controlled clinical trial across six international academic medical centers. Participants were randomized to high dose (2.5 mA for 30 min) or low dose (0.034 mA, for 30 min) tDCS for 20 sessions over 4 weeks, followed by an optional 4 weeks of open-label high dose treatment. The tDCS anode was centered over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at F3 (10/20 EEG system) and the cathode over F8. Participants completed clinical and neurocognitive assessments before and after tDCS. Genotype (BDNF Val66Met and catechol-o-methyltransferase [COMT] Val158Met polymorphisms) were explored as potential moderators of neurocognitive effects.

RESULTS

The study randomized 130 participants. Across the participants, tDCS treatment (high and low dose) resulted in improvements in verbal learning and recall, selective attention, information processing speed, and working memory, which were independent of mood effects. Similar improvements were observed in the subsample of participants with bipolar disorder. There was no observed significant effect of tDCS dose. However, BDNF Val66Met and COMT Val158Met polymorphisms interacted with tDCS dose and affected verbal memory and verbal fluency outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that tDCS could have positive neurocognitive effects in unipolar and bipolar depression. Thus, tDCS stimulation parameters may interact with interindividual differences in BDNF and COMT polymorphisms to affect neurocognitive outcomes, which warrants further investigation.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Psychiatry: What Psychiatrists Need to Know

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a potential treatment for a host of neuropsychiatric disorders. Data appear to indicate that tDCS applied over frontal or prefrontal brain regions may reduce symptoms of major depression, yet results have been mixed. Early studies showed promise, but recent work failed to replicate earlier results. The decision whether to use tDCS is further affected by the complex regulatory environment; no tDCS devices are cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for clinical use. Older systems have grandfathered regulatory approval for treating mood, anxiety, and insomnia, although they have not demonstrated efficacy in rigorous trials. Furthermore, as the field of noninvasive brain stimulation advances, various side effects and contraindications are increasingly recognized. Over the last few years, research and consumer use of tDCS have outpaced education, thus providing little guidance for clinicians and trainees about how to understand tDCS. Therefore, this focused review includes those items psychiatric clinicians and trainees most need to understand tDCS, including basic electrical and neurophysiological principles, a brief review of efficacy data in major depressive disorder, and suggested guidelines about how to manage patients using tDCS.

Modulation of Serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor by a Single Dose of Ayahuasca: Observation From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Serotonergic psychedelics are emerging as potential antidepressant therapeutic tools, as suggested in a recent randomized controlled trial with ayahuasca for treatment-resistant depression. Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested that serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels increase after treatment with serotoninergic antidepressants, but the exact role of BDNF as a biomarker for diagnostic and treatment of major depression is still poorly understood. Here we investigated serum BDNF levels in healthy controls (N = 45) and patients with treatment-resistant depression (N = 28) before (baseline) and 48 h after (D2) a single dose of ayahuasca or placebo. In our sample, baseline serum BDNF levels did not predict major depression and the clinical characteristics of the patients did not predict their BDNF levels. However, at baseline, serum cortisol was a predictor of serum BDNF levels, where lower levels of serum BDNF were detected in a subgroup of subjects with hypocortisolemia. Moreover, at baseline we found a negative correlation between BDNF and serum cortisol in volunteers with eucortisolemia. After treatment (D2) we observed higher BDNF levels in both patients and controls that ingested ayahuasca (N = 35) when compared to placebo (N = 34). Furthermore, at D2 just patients treated with ayahuasca (N = 14), and not with placebo (N = 14), presented a significant negative correlation between serum BDNF levels and depressive symptoms. This is the first double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial that explored the modulation of BDNF in response to a psychedelic in patients with depression. The results suggest a potential link between the observed antidepressant effects of ayahuasca and changes in serum BDNF, which contributes to the emerging view of using psychedelics as an antidepressant. This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02914769).

Pilot trial of home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, neuromodulation approach with promising efficacy for treating depression. To date, tDCS has been limited to clinical or research centre settings with treatment administered by staff. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy, tolerability and feasibility of home-administered, remotely-supervised tDCS for depression.

METHODS

In an open label trial, 34 participants used a Soterix 1 × 1 mini-CT device to self-administer 20-28 tDCS sessions (2 mA, 30 min, F3-anode and F8-cathode montage according to 10-20 EEG placement) over 4 weeks followed by a taper phase of 4 sessions 1 week apart. Participants were initially monitored via video link and then through completion of an online treatment diary. Mixed effects repeated measures analyses assessed change in mood scores.

RESULTS

Mood improved significantly from baseline (27.47 on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) to 1 month after the end of acute treatment (15.48) (p < 0.001). Side effects were largely transient and minor. Outcomes were comparable to those reported in clinic-based trials. Protocol adherence was excellent with a drop-out rate of 6% and 93% of scheduled sessions completed.

LIMITATIONS

The tDCS and remote monitoring procedures employed in this study require a level of manual dexterity and computer literacy, which may be challenging for some patients. This study did not have a control condition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides initial evidence that home-based, remotely-supervised tDCS treatment may be efficacious and feasible for depressed patients and has high translational potential.

Methods to monitor accurate and consistent electrode placements in conventional transcranial electrical stimulation

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate electrode placement and electrode drift during a transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) session have been shown to alter predicted field distributions in the brain and thus may contribute to a large variation in tES study outcomes. Currently, there is no objective and independent measure to quantify electrode placement accuracy/drift in tES clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We proposed and tested novel methods to quantify accurate and consistent electrode placements in tES using models generated from a 3D scanner.

METHODS

Accurate electrode placements were quantified as Discrepancy in eight tES participants by comparing landmark distances of physical electrode locations F3/F4 to their model counterparts. Distances in models were computed using curve and linear based methods. Variability of landmark locations in a single subject was computed for multiple stimulation sessions to determine consistent electrode placements across four experimenters.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained an average of 0.4 cm in Discrepancy, which was within the placement accuracy/drift threshold (1 cm) for conventional tES electrodes (∼35 cm2) to achieve reliable tES sessions suggested in the literature. Averaged Variability was 5.2%, with F4 electrode location as the least consistent placement.

CONCLUSIONS

These methods provide objective feedback for experimenters on their performance in placing tES electrodes. Applications of these methods can be used to monitor electrode locations in tES studies of a larger cohort using F3/F4 montage and other conventional electrode arrangements. Future studies may include co-registering the landmark locations with imaging-derived head models to quantify the effects of electrode accuracy/drift on predicted field distributions in the brain.

Noninvasive brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders: a primer

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.

Clinical Usefulness of Therapeutic Neuromodulation for Major Depression: A Systematic Meta-Review of Recent Meta-Analyses

The authors conducted a meta-review of meta-analyses published in the past decade on therapeutic neuromodulation (ie, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation) for major depression. Active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation have been generally associated with small to moderate effect sizes vis-à-vis their efficacy and with similar acceptability compared with sham. Vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation (although more challenging to investigate) have demonstrated preliminary effectiveness, particularly during longer-term follow-up.

Hypomania Induced by Bifrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in a Patient with Bipolar Depression

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, has been increasingly used to treat bipolar depression. Researchers recently noticed the risk of tDCS-emergent mania/hypomania in depressed patients and started to evaluate this risk by launching a meta-analysis. Here we present a female with bipolar II depression who rapidly developed hypomanic switching during bifrontal tDCS.

Cognitive Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Healthy and Clinical Populations: An Overview

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory approach that is affordable, safe, and well tolerated. This review article summarizes the research and clinically relevant findings from meta-analyses and studies investigating the cognitive effects of tDCS in healthy and clinical populations. We recapitulate findings from recent studies where cognitive performance paired with tDCS was compared with performance under placebo (sham stimulation) in single sessions and longitudinal designs where cognitive effects were evaluated following repeated sessions. In summary, the tDCS literature currently indicates that the effects of tDCS on cognitive measures are less robust and less predictable compared with the more consistent effects on motor outcomes. There is also a notable difference in the consistency of single-session and longitudinal designs. In single-session tDCS designs, there are small effects amid high variability confounded by individual differences and potential sham stimulation effects. In contrast, longitudinal studies provide more consistent benefits in healthy and clinical populations, particularly when tDCS is paired with a concurrent task. Yet, these studies are few in number, thereby impeding design optimization. While there is good evidence that tDCS can modulate cognitive functioning and potentially produce longer-term benefits, a major challenge to widespread translation of tDCS is the absence of a complete mechanistic account for observed effects. Significant future work is needed to identify a priori responders from nonresponders for every cognitive task and tDCS protocol.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Acute Depressive Episode: A Systematic Review of Current Knowledge

Major depressive disorder is a severe, refractory mental disorder. Only one third of patients treated with antidepressants achieve remission after 3 trials, while subject to adverse effects. Therefore, the investigation of alternative treatments is paramount. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the most recent evidence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) intervention for the acute phase of major depressive disorder. A PubMed search was performed including the terms "transcranial direct current stimulation" OR "transcranial direct stimulation" OR "tDCS" AND "major depressive disorder" OR "major depression" OR "depression" AND "trial." The search was conducted from inception until February 2018. Our search yielded initially 165 results, and 14 randomized clinical trials were included according to eligibility criteria. Most studies were pilot studies, with mixed findings. Two large randomized clinical trials recently published also presented primary negative findings. Study protocols usually used anodal left/cathodal right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation, 1 to 2.5 mA, and 5 to 20 tDCS sessions. We discuss the limitations of the included trials, such as sample and tDCS parameters heterogeneity between studies. To conclude, tDCS seems to be safe and devoid of serious adverse effects, although robust efficacy has not been consistently demonstrated in clinical trials assessing an acute treatment course of up to 4 weeks. Further directions are discussed, such as parameter individualization, investigation of biological markers, and home-use tDCS.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Promising Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder?

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) opens new perspectives in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), because of its ability to modulate cortical excitability and induce long-lasting effects. The aim of this review is to summarize the current status of knowledge regarding tDCS application in MDD. Methods: In this review, we searched for articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE from the earliest available date to February 2018 that explored clinical and cognitive effects of tDCS in MDD. Results: Despite differences in design and stimulation parameters, the examined studies indicated beneficial effects of tDCS for MDD. These preliminary results, the non-invasiveness of tDCS, and its good tolerability support the need for further research on this technique. Conclusions: tDCS constitutes a promising therapeutic alternative for patients with MDD, but its place in the therapeutic armamentarium remains to be determined.

Transcranial direct current stimulation of 20- and 30-minutes combined with sertraline for the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can be an effective treatment for depression, however, the duration of the stimulation session, among other parameters, needs to be optimized.

METHODS

69 mild to moderately depressed patients (age 37.6±10.5years, 19 men) were randomized into three groups - 30-, 20-minute or sham tDCS. 10 daily sessions of anodal/sham tDCS of the left DLPFC (0.5mA; electrode 3,5×7cm) combined with 50mg/day of sertraline were performed. Mood, cognition and BDNF level were assessed before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

A significant difference between groups was observed in the percent change of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (F(2, 66)=10.1; p<0.001). Sham group (43.4%±18.1) had a smaller improvement compared to the 30-minute (63.8%±13.4; 95% CI: 11.23-29.44; p=0.00003) and 20-minute group (53.2%±15.3; 95% CI: 0.21-19.26; p=0.045). 30-minute group had significantly greater percent improvement than 20-minute group (95% CI: 1.74-19.46; p=0.02). Responders constituted 89%, 68%, and 50% and remitters - 70%, 27%, and 35% in the 30-, 20-minute and sham groups, respectively. A significant difference in the number of responders was observed between 30-minute vs. sham group (odds ratio=8; 95% CI, 2.59-24.69; p=0.001), in remission rate - between 30-minute vs. sham (odds ratio=4.40; 95% CI, 2.02-9.57; p=0.02) and vs. 20-minute (odds ratio=6.33; 95% CI, 2.85-14.10; p=0.003) groups. Two hypomania cases and one case of blood pressure elevation were detected in the 20-minute group. Among neuropsychological tests, only the change in Digit Span Backwards test showed a significant interaction between groups (TIME*GROUP; F(2, 65)=6,6, p=0.002); a greater improvement was observed in both active groups compared to sham (p<0.05). The change in BDNF level after the treatment did not show the significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS of 20- or 30-minutes combined with sertraline are efficient for the treatment of mild and moderate depression; the effect of 30min stimulation exceeds the one obtained from 20min.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Add-on Treatment for Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

More effective, tolerable interventions for bipolar depression treatment are needed. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel therapeutic modality with few severe adverse events that showed promising results for unipolar depression.

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial (the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial [BETTER]) was conducted from July 1, 2014, to March 30, 2016, at an outpatient, single-center academic setting. Participants included 59 adults with type I or II bipolar disorder in a major depressive episode and receiving a stable pharmacologic regimen with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) scores higher than 17. Data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat sample.

Interventions

Ten daily 30-minute, 2-mA, anodal-left and cathodal-right prefrontal sessions of active or sham tDCS on weekdays and then 1 session every fortnight until week 6.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in HDRS-17 scores at week 6.

Results

Fifty-nine patients (40 [68%] women), with a mean (SD) age of 45.9 (12) years participated; 36 (61%) with bipolar I and 23 (39%) with bipolar II disorder were randomized and 52 finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the active tDCS condition showed significantly superior improvement compared with those receiving sham (βint = -1.68; number needed to treat, 5.8; 95% CI, 3.3-25.8; P = .01). Cumulative response rates were higher in the active vs sham groups (67.6% vs 30.4%; number needed to treat, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.84-4.99; P = .01), but not remission rates (37.4% vs 19.1%; number needed to treat, 5.46; 95% CI, 3.38-14.2; P = .18). Adverse events, including treatment-emergent affective switches, were similar between groups, except for localized skin redness that was higher in the active group (54% vs 19%; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial, tDCS was an effective, safe, and tolerable add-on intervention for this small bipolar depression sample. Further trials should examine tDCS efficacy in a larger sample.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152878.

Safety of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are increasingly used for therapeutic applications. However, adverse events (AEs) associated with repeated sessions have not been comprehensively evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the safety of repeated sessions of tDCS, examining AE risk relative to tDCS exposure. Further, to identify whether certain participant populations are particularly at risk from tDCS.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis included sham-controlled studies (up to June 2017) involving two or more tDCS sessions, spaced not more than a day apart. Data was extracted on AEs reported, total tDCS exposure (cumulative charge), and diagnostic groups (Healthy, Pain Disorder, Stroke, Neurocognitive Disorder, Neuropsychiatric Disorder, and Other). Univariate simple linear meta-regression analyses examined AE likelihood, comparing active and sham tDCS, with increasing exposure. Rates of AEs were compared for diagnostic groups.

RESULTS

158 studies (total 4130 participants) met inclusion criteria and were included for quantitative analyses. The incidence of AEs (examined per session, by proportion of participants, and by the number of studies reporting AEs) did not increase with higher levels of tDCS exposure. Furthermore, AE rates were not found to be greater for any diagnostic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Little evidence was found to suggest that repeated sessions of active tDCS pose increased risk to participants compared to sham tDCS within the limits of parameters used to date. Increased risks associated with greater levels of exposure to tDCS, or rare and under-reported AEs, however, cannot be ruled out.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.