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

Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with depression: An electric field modeling meta-analysis

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has shown potential in modulating cortical activity and treating depression. Despite its promise, variability in electrode montage configurations and electric field strength across studies has resulted in inconsistent outcomes. Traditional meta-analytic methods assessing the effect of tDCS in depression typically do not compare tDCS montage and the anatomical distribution of electric field, which is a major source of inter-experimental variability. We hypothesize that considering these parameters and anatomical variability in a meta-analysis might unravel brain regions associated with tDCS response in patients with depression. We correlate the clinical outcome (Effect size) with electric field intensities across 8 diverse head models, analyzing data from 29 studies involving 1766 patients between 2000 and 2023. Our analysis found a significant effect of tDCS on depression, with a Hedge's g = 0.66 (95 % CI: 0.565 to 0.767). Although studies aimed to target the L-DLPFC, particularly Brodmann area (BA) 46, based on the Frontal Brain Asymmetry theory, our findings show that all the montages do not selectively target the L-DLPFC as intended. Instead, our findings indicated that the electric field impact was dispersing broadly across the frontal lobes and exhibiting significant heterogeneity. We found a correlation between electric field strength and clinical outcomes in BA 10, BA 11, and the anterior part of BA 46 despite tDCS montages heterogeneity and individual variability, suggesting that targeting frontopolar prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices could be ideal for tDCS in treating depression. Our work underscores brain regions associated with tDCS response and highlights the need for simulation-guided, personalized trials that consider individual anatomical differences.

Efficacy and acceptability of brain stimulation for anxiety disorders, OCD, and PTSD: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of brain stimulation techniques (BSTs) for anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov and HowNet databases for studies published before September 10, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that involved deep brain stimulation (DBS), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), sham therapy, or health control were included for analysis. The primary outcome was efficacy, while acceptability was considered as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 1333 patients with various anxiety disorders including social anxiety disorder, general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social panic, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and agoraphobia, recruited from 41 trials with 86 treatment arms. Network meta-analysis showed that some BSTs had higher efficacy compared to controls, including DBS, ECT, cathodal tDCS, high-frequency rTMS (hf-rTMS), anodal tDCS, and low-frequency rTMS (lf-rTMS). Furthermore, hf-rTMS, lf-rTMS, and ECT had high acceptability in terms of odds ratio (OR).

LIMITATIONS

This study has limitations, including a focus on specific types of brain stimulation for anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD and not considering factors like stimulation parameters. Future research should explore a broader range of technologies and parameters across various psychiatric and neurological conditions.

CONCLUSION

The study results suggest that BSTs are effective treatments for anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD; lf-rTMS may be considered as the most promising option.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Cognitive Impairment Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As global demographics shift toward an older population, cognitive impairment is becoming increasingly critical. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), an innovative brain stimulation technique, has the potential to significantly improve cognitive function. Our main aim is to comprehensively analyze the existing literature, identify key aspects of tDCS research in the rehabilitation of cognitive impairment, and predict future trends in this field.

METHODS

We used the Web of Science (WOS) database to search for English articles and reviews relevant to this topic. For visual analysis of the literature, we employed the WOS analysis tool, CiteSpace, along with VOSviewer software to ensure comprehensive analysis.

RESULTS

We included 2940 articles published between 1998 and 2023. Over 25 years, annual publications and citations in this field increased steadily, peaking at 379 articles in 2021. Michael A. Nitsche was a major contributor. Most articles came from developed countries, primarily North America and Europe, and journals generally had modest impact factors. Research in this field primarily aims to treat cognitive impairment resulting from pathological aging or neuropsychiatric disorders, with a particular focus on specific brain regions. Recently, researchers have integrated various treatment modalities with tDCS techniques to actively investigate effective strategies to mitigate cognitive impairments associated with pathological aging.

CONCLUSION

This study presents the first bibliometric analysis of the literature on tDCS in the rehabilitation of cognitive impairment, highlighting key areas of research and emerging trends. These findings provide critical insights for future tDCS interventions targeting cognitive impairment associated with pathological aging.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation and neuronavigation for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are increasingly used for major depressive disorder (MDD). Most tDCS and rTMS studies target the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, either with or without neuronavigation. We examined the effect of rTMS and tDCS, and the added value of neuronavigation in the treatment of MDD.

METHODS

A search on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for rTMS or tDCS randomized controlled trials of MDD up to 1 February 2023, yielded 89 studies. We then performed meta-analyses comparing tDCS efficacy to non-neuronavigated rTMS, tDCS to neuronavigated rTMS, and neuronavigated rTMS to non-neuronavigated rTMS. We assessed the significance of the effect in subgroups and in the whole meta-analysis with a z-test and subgroup differences with a chi-square test.

RESULTS

We found small-to-medium effects of both tDCS and rTMS on MDD, with a slightly greater effect from rTMS. No significant difference was found between neuronavigation and non-neuronavigation.

CONCLUSION

Although both tDCS and rTMS are effective in treating MDD, many patients do not respond. Additionally, current neuronavigation methods are not significantly improving MDD treatment. It is therefore imperative to seek personalized methods for these interventions.

Effect of add-on transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in major depressive disorder: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effect of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on major depressive disorder (MDD) was not confirmed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of tACS as an add-on treatment for the symptoms of depression and to understand how tACS affects brain activity.

METHODS

The 4-week, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial was performed from January 29, 2023 to December 22, 2023. Sixty-six participants were recruited and randomly assigned to receive 20 40-min sessions of either active (77.5Hz, 15 mA) or sham stimulation, with one electrode on the forehead and two on the mastoid, each day (n = 33 for each group) for four weeks (till Week 4). The participants were followed for 4 more weeks (till Week 8) without stimulation for efficacy/safety assessment. During the 4-week trial, all participants were required to take 10-20 mg of escitalopram daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in HAMD-17 scores from baseline to Week 4 (with 20 treatment sessions completed). Resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) was collected with a 64-channel EEG system (Brain Products, Germany) at baseline and the Week 4 follow-up. The chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, independent-sample t-test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used, as appropriate, to compare the differences in variables between groups. The effect of the intervention on the HAMD-17 score was also evaluated with linear mixed modeling (LMM) as sensitivity analysis. The correlation between the mean reduction in EEG and the mean reduction in the HAMD-17 total score was evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients (mean [SD] age, 28.4 [8.18] years; 52 [78.8 %] female) were randomized, and 57 patients completed the study. Significant differences were found in the reductions in the HAMD-17 scores at Week 4 (t = 3.44, P = 0.001). Response rates at Week 4 were significantly higher in the active tACS group than in the sham tACS group (22 out of 33 patients [66.7 %] versus 11 out of 33 [33.3 %], P = 0.007). In the active tACS group, a correlation between the mean change in alpha power and HAMD-17 scores at Week 4 was found (r = 2.38, P = 0.024), and the mean change in alpha power was significantly bigger for responders (Z = 2.46, P = 0.014). No serious adverse events were observed in this trial.

CONCLUSION

The additional antidepressant effect of tACS is significant, and the combination of tACS with antidepressants is a feasible and effective approach for the treatment of MDD. The antidepressant mechanism of tACS may be the reduction in alpha power in the left frontal lobe. Future research directions may include exploring more appropriate treatment parameters of tACS.

A Review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Medication and Psychotherapy for Depression

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After participating in this CME activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:• Compare and contrast therapies used in combination with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating MDD.

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive neuromodulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has emerged as a major area for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). This review has two primary aims: (1) to review the current literature on combining TMS and tDCS with other therapies, such as psychotherapy and psychopharmacological interventions, and (2) to discuss the efficacy, feasibility, limitations, and future directions of these combined treatments for MDD.

METHOD

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched three databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library. The last search date was December 5, 2023.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 2,519 records. After screening and full-text review, 58 studies (7 TMS plus psychotherapy, 32 TMS plus medication, 7 tDCS plus psychotherapy, 12 tDCS plus medication) were included.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature on tDCS and TMS paired with psychotherapy provides initial support for integrating mindfulness interventions with both TMS and tDCS. Adding TMS or tDCS to stable doses of ongoing medications can decrease MDD symptoms; however, benzodiazepines may interfere with TMS and tDCS response, and antipsychotics can interfere with TMS response. Pairing citalopram with TMS and sertraline with tDCS can lead to greater MDD symptom reduction compared to using these medications alone. Future studies need to enroll larger samples, include randomized controlled study designs, create more uniform protocols for combined treatment delivery, and explore mechanisms and predictors of change.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation combined with antidepressant medications for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants, noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), and their combination are commonly used in routine clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is a continuous dispute regarding whether the effectiveness of NIBS in combination with antidepressants exceeds that of antidepressants alone. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing evidence and draw a definitive conclusion on this issue.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of five databases: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, SinoMed, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials. The search was conducted until October 6, 2023. The primary outcomes were the pre- and post-intervention depression and anxiety scores. Secondary outcomes included dropout rates, response rates, and certain levels of neurotransmitters [ 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), dopamine (DA), and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)] at the end of the intervention. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. The data were analysed using R 4.2.2.

RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs [1357 participants; 11 studies used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and 7 studies used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)]. The follow-up duration varied from two weeks to three months. Overall, whether in combination with rTMS or tDCS, antidepressants proved more effective in alleviating depressive symptoms compared to when used as monotherapy. However, this advantage was not evident during the follow-up period. (p > 0.05). And the combination's efficacy in improving anxiety was found to be lacking. Post-treatment serum levels of 5-HT, DA, and GABA were higher in the rTMS group were higher than antidepressant medication group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, subgroup analysis results indicated that only the rTMS + antidepressant medication treatment significantly improved remission and remission rates. The meta-regression results showed that the type of antidepressant and the sex of the participants had a significant association with the depression score.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with NIBS was significantly more effective in improving depression symptoms than medication alone. rTMS combined with antidepressants appears to be more effective in improving response and remission rates. However, efficacy may be influenced by the type of medicine used in combination, and long-term efficacy data is lacking.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023388259.

Neurocognitive function as outcome and predictor for prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation in major depressive disorder: an analysis from the DepressionDC trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the prefrontal cortex might beneficially influence neurocognitive dysfunctions associated with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, previous studies of neurocognitive effects of tDCS have been inconclusive. In the current study, we analyzed longitudinal, neurocognitive data from 101 participants of a randomized controlled multicenter trial (DepressionDC), investigating the efficacy of bifrontal tDCS (2 mA, 30 min/d, for 6 weeks) in patients with MDD and insufficient response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). We assessed whether active tDCS compared to sham tDCS elicited beneficial effects across the domains of memory span, working memory, selective attention, sustained attention, executive process, and processing speed, assessed with a validated, digital test battery. Additionally, we explored whether baseline cognitive performance, as a proxy of fronto-parietal-network functioning, predicts the antidepressant effects of active tDCS versus sham tDCS. We found no statistically significant group differences in the change of neurocognitive performance between active and sham tDCS. Furthermore, baseline cognitive performance did not predict the clinical response to tDCS. Our findings indicate no advantage in neurocognition due to active tDCS in MDD. Additional research is required to systematically investigate the effects of tDCS protocols on neurocognitive performance in patients with MDD.

Adjunctive duration-doubled transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depressive patients with suicidal ideation: study protocol for a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The problem of suicide has become increasingly common in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an effective treatment for MDD with 2 milliamperes (mA) for at least 30 min per day for 2 weeks. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of daily duration-doubled tDCS as an adjunctive intervention for rapidly reducing suicidal ideation and improving depression in MDD patients.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study, 76 MDD patients with suicidal ideation are randomly assigned to either active (n=38) or sham (n=38) tDCS group. The anode and cathode are placed over the scalp areas corresponding to left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively, and each stimulation lasts for 60 min. The primary outcome is defined as change of Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSI) after 5 and 10 sessions. The change of other clinical assessments, blood biomarkers related to suicidal ideation and depressive sumptoms are defined as secondary outcomes. Blood biomarkers related to suicidal ideation are collected at baseline and after 10 sessions.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests the adjunctive duration-doubled tDCS might be a novel method to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation and improve depressive symptom. The variation of biomarkers could be potential predictive models of suicide risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial protocol is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under protocol registration number NCT05555927. Registered on September 25, 2022.

Application of Transcranial Direct and Alternating Current Stimulation (tDCS and tACS) on Major Depressive Disorder

The exploration of brain stimulation methods offers a promising avenue to overcome the shortcomings of traditional drug therapies and psychological treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Over the past years, there has been an increasing focus on transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), notably for its ease of use and potentially fewer side effects. This chapter delves into the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), which are key components of tES, in managing depression. It begins by introducing tDCS and tACS, summarizing their action mechanisms. Following this introduction, the chapter provides an in-depth analysis of existing meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical studies, and case reports that have applied tES in MDD treatment. It also considers the role of tES in personalized medicine by looking at specific patient groups and evaluating research on possible biomarkers that could predict how patients with MDD respond to tES therapy.

Comparison of 60-minute vs 30-minute transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in major depressive disorder: Effects on depression suicidal ideation and anxiety

We investigated whether changes through doubling the duration of each tDCS session would increase efficacy of tDCS for depression. tDCS was applied for 10 sessions, followed by two additional weekly sessions. 63 patients with MDD underwent randomization, with 22 being assigned to 60-min/d group, 25 to 30 min/d group, and 16 to sham group. HAMD-17 reductive ratios at week 2 and 4 were of no significant differences among treatment groups. 60 min group had a greater decrease in anxiety compared to 30 min group and sham group based on HAMA at 4 weeks but only in the completer analysis, not in ITT analysis.

Targeting right orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve cognitive executive function in a major depressive episode, but not depressive mood: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a potential treatment for major depressive episodes (MDE). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of targeting the right orbitofrontal cortex (rOFC) with tDCS in improving depressed mood and cognitive function in patients with depression. A double-blind, randomized sham-controlled trial was conducted in which 70 patients with depression were randomly assigned to receive rOFC-tDCS (n = 24), left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) tDCS (n = 23), or SHAM (n = 23). The treatment course consisted of ten treatments (2 mA, 20 min) delivered over two weeks. Participants were then given once-a-week interventions for the next two weeks. The Hamilton Depression Scale 17 evaluated the severity of depressive symptoms, while the cognitive function was assessed using the Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT) and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). The primary outcomes were evaluated following ten interventions, with the assessment additionally conducted after maintenance treatment and 4-week follow-up visits. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models. The trial was registered with ChiCTR2000034671. The study did not reveal antidepressant efficacy for rOFC-tDCS or lDLPFC-tDCS over SHAM. Cognitive performance improved for rOFC -tDCS and lDLPFC-tDCS compared to sham for response time on the SWCT and non-perseverative errors in the WCST. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two active stimulation groups concerning cognitive performance-enhancing effects. No serious adverse events were noted. In conclusion, while rOFC-tDCS did not present advantages for mood outcomes over lDLPFC-tDCS and SHAM, it may have promising effectiveness in cognitive executive function compared to SHAM.

Bifrontal-transcranial direct current stimulation as an early augmentation strategy in major depressive disorder: A single-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with major depressive disorder who have a poor or inconsistent response to antidepressants have been treated using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Early tDCS augmentation may help with the early amelioration of symptoms. In this study, the efficacy and safety of tDCS as early augmentation therapy in major depressive disorder were evaluated.

METHODS

Fifty adults were randomized into two groups and were administered either active tDCS or sham tDCS, along with escitalopram 10 mg/day. A total of 10 tDCS sessions with anodal stimulation at the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and cathode at the right DLPFC were given over two weeks. Assessments were done using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) at baseline, two weeks, and four weeks. A tDCS side effect checklist was administered during therapy.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in HAM-D, BDI, and HAM-A scores were observed in both groups from baseline to week-4. At week-2, the active group had a significantly greater reduction in HAM-D and BDI scores than the sham group. However, at the end of therapy, both groups were comparable. The active group was 1.12 times more likely to experience any side effect than the sham group, but the intensity ranged from mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

tDCS is an effective and safe strategy for managing depression as an early augmentation strategy, and it produces an early reduction of depressive symptoms and is well tolerated in moderate to severe depressive episodes.

A dual-mode neurostimulation approach to enhance athletic performance outcome in experienced taekwondo practitioners

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a growing empirical approach to improve athletic performance. Some recent studies have investigated the effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on the motor performance such as reaction time. TDCS and tsDCS can lead to alteration of the spontaneous neural activity, and the membrane potentials of motor neurons in cerebral cortex and spinal interneurons, respectively. Given the paucity of experimental studies on the non-invasive brain stimulation in the field of sports neuroscience, especially martial sports, the present study aimed at investigating the effects of neurostimulation in potentiating the motor and cognitive functions in experienced taekwondo practitioners. The study sample included 15 experienced male taekwondo players who received real or sham direct current stimulation on the primary motor cortex (M1) and the lumbar spinal segment (T12-L2) over two sessions, 72 h apart. Next, the performance of the participants was evaluated through a simulation of taekwondo exercise directly after the sham and real sessions. Moreover, a cognitive platform (CBS: Cambridge Brain Science) was used to investigate the participants' cognitive profile in each instance. Unlike sham stimulation, real tDCS was associated with improved selective attention and reaction time in both in the simulated task performance and cognitive examination. The concurrent cortical and trans-spinal tDCS was found to improve selective attention (31% performance improvement) (P < 0.0001) [EFFECT SIZE; 1.84]. and reduce reaction time (4.7% performance improvement) (P < 0.0001) [EFFECT SIZE; 0.02]. Meanwhile, the intervention failed to leave a significant change in cognitive functions evaluated through CBS (P > 0.05). As informed by our results, the present dual-mode neurostimulation could improve motor functions potentially through the effect of tsDCS over the spinal interneurons and tDCS over the primary motor cortex. Likewise, our findings suggested an improved performance in simulated taekwondo task after real- but not sham-stimulation. This study paves the way for designing neurostimulation protocols to improve the performance of professional athletes, namely martial art practitioners, including their accuracy and velocity of reactions. Such positive effects of neuostimulation in athletic performance as demonstrated in this research and similar reports are expected to enhance the athletes' success in professional competitions.

Therapeutic potential of brain stimulation techniques in the treatment of mental, psychiatric, and cognitive disorders

Treatment for brain diseases has been disappointing because available medications have failed to produce clinical response across all the patients. Many patients either do not respond or show partial and inconsistent effect, and even in patients who respond to the medications have high relapse rates. Brain stimulation has been seen as an alternative and effective remedy. As a result, brain stimulation has become one of the most valuable therapeutic tools for combating against brain diseases. In last decade, studies with the application of brain stimulation techniques not only have grown exponentially but also have expanded to wide range of brain disorders. Brain stimulation involves passing electric currents into the cortical and subcortical area brain cells with the use of noninvasive as well as invasive methods to amend brain functions. Over time, technological advancements have evolved into the development of precise devices; however, at present, most used noninvasive techniques are repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), whereas the most common invasive technique is deep brain stimulation (DBS). In the current review, we will provide an overview of the potential of noninvasive (rTMS and tDCS) and invasive (DBS) brain stimulation techniques focusing on the treatment of mental, psychiatric, and cognitive disorders.

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.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation, alone or in combination with antidepressant medications or psychotherapies, effective in treating major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown mixed results for depression treatment. The efficacies of tDCS combination therapies have not been investigated deliberately. This review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of tDCS as a monotherapy and in combination with medication, psychotherapy, and ECT for treating adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and identified the factors influencing treatment outcome measures (i.e. depression score, dropout, response, and remission rates).

METHODS

The systematic review was performed in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Sciences, and OpenGrey. Two authors performed independent literature screening and data extraction. The primary outcomes were the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous depression scores after treatment and odds ratio (OR) dropout rate; secondary outcomes included ORs for response and remission rates. Random effects models with 95% confidence intervals were employed in all outcomes. The overall effect of tDCS was investigated by meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were explored via subgroup analyses, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of publication bias.

RESULTS

Twelve randomised, sham-controlled trials (active group: N = 251, sham group: N = 204) were included. Overall, the integrated depression score of the active group after treatment was significantly lower than that of the sham group (g = - 0.442, p = 0.017), and further analysis showed that only tDCS + medication achieved a significant lower score (g = - 0.855, p < 0.001). Moreover, this combination achieved a significantly higher response rate than sham intervention (OR = 2.7, p = 0.006), while the response rate remained unchanged for the other three therapies. Dropout and remission rates were similar in the active and sham groups for each therapy and also for the overall intervention. The meta-regression results showed that current intensity is the only predictor for the response rate. None of publication bias was identified.

CONCLUSION

The effect size of tDCS treatment was obviously larger in depression score compared with sham stimulation. The tDCS combined selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors is the optimized therapy that is effective on depression score and response rate. tDCS monotherapy and combined psychotherapy have no significant effects. The most important parameter for optimization in future trials is treatment strategy.

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.

Clinical effectiveness of non-TMS neurostimulation in depression: Clinical trials from 2010 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

Treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) have evolved, although there is still a strong unmet need for more effective and tolerable options. The present study summarizes and discusses recent evidence regarding the non-transcranial magnetic stimulation (non-TMS) neurostimulation treatment for MDD.

METHODS

The authors reviewed non-TMS neurostimulation clinical trials for MDD between 2010 and 2020. Electroconvulsive therapy was not included in this review. A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE database through PubMed, the Cochrane Collaboration's Clinical Trials Register (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and Thomson Reuters's Web of Science.

RESULTS

Only 20 articles met the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials demonstrated efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in five of seven trials. tDCS augmented with sertraline, fluoxetine, citalopram and escitalopram was superior to placebo and to tDCS only. A comparative trial demonstrated that the duration of tDCS sessions can modulate the effectiveness of this treatment. Open trials indicated that deep brain stimulation, epidural cortical stimulation, trigeminal nerve stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy and vagus nerve stimulation may be effective in treatment-resistant depression.

CONCLUSION

This review confirmed the efficacy of tDCS in MDD. Despite new evidence showing effectiveness for other non-TMS neurostimulation, their effectiveness is still unclear. Non-TMS neurostimulation RCTs with large samples and head-to-head studies comparing non-TMS neurostimulation and gold standard pharmacological treatments are still lacking.

Determinants of sham response in tDCS depression trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) investigating transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) efficacy for depression show significant heterogeneity in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the magnitude of the sham tDCS response and its potential moderators in the treatment of depression.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review and aggregate meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42020161254). The systematic review was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus (EMBASE) and Cochrane Library databases. Only RCTs enrolling adult subjects with an acute depressive episode with a sham tDCS group were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (twenty-five datasets, 501 participants) were included. Sham tDCS response was large (Hedges' g = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.8;1.38). Secondary and subgroup analyses showed that sham protocols employing a ramp-up/ramp-down at the beginning and end of stimulation presented a significantly lower sham response compared to other protocols. Univariate meta-regression analyses found that sham response was associated with higher risk of blinding bias, and with thetreatment effect size of the active tDCS group. Subgroup analyses also showed that placement of the cathode over the lateral right frontal area (F8) presented a significantly lower sham response. Other moderators, including treatment resistance, baseline severity of depressive symptoms, and total charge delivered were not associated with the magnitude of the sham response.

CONCLUSION

The sham tDCS response was large. Our findings demonstrate the need for standardization of sham tDCS protocols and bring attention to important considerations that can guide future RCTs employing tDCS for the treatment of MDD.

Efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising nonpharmacological intervention for treating depression. We aimed to provide an updated meta-analysis assessing the anti-depressant efficacy of tDCS.

METHODS

We searched the literature from the first available date to 30 December 2020 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

27 RCTs (N = 1204 patients, 653 in active tDCS and 551 in sham tDCS) were included. Active tDCS was superior to sham tDCS (g = 0.46, 95 % CI 0.15-0.76) in modulating depressive symptoms measured by depression rating scales. Active tDCS was also superior to sham tDCS in reducing response and remission rates, but these differences did not reach statistically significant levels (OR_response = 1.75, 95 % CI 0.85-3.58; OR_remission = 1.29, 95 % CI 0.59-2.83). The two groups had comparable dropout rates (OR = 1.28, 95 % CI 0.62-1.64).

CONCLUSION

For treatments of depressive episodes, tDCS may be efficacious. Specific tDCS parameters (e.g., a 2-mA stimulation current and 30-min sessions) and clinical characteristics (e.g., antidepressant-free) may augment the treatment efficacy of tDCS.

[Transcranial direct current stimulation in neurology and psychiatry]

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive method of modulating brain excitability by low intensity direct current. At present, there are numerous studies of tDCS application in various mental and neurological diseases. In this review, the data of tDCS efficiency in the treatment of different disorders are presented and the recommendations on using this method in clinical practice are given.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cognition is commonly affected in brain disorders. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may have procognitive effects, with high tolerability. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in improving cognition, in schizophrenia, depression, dementia, Parkinson's disease, stroke, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

A PRISMA systematic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials. Hedges' g was used to quantify effect sizes (ES) for changes in cognition after TMS/tDCS v. sham. As different cognitive functions may have unequal susceptibility to TMS/tDCS, we separately evaluated the effects on: attention/vigilance, working memory, executive functioning, processing speed, verbal fluency, verbal learning, and social cognition.

RESULTS

We included 82 studies (n = 2784). For working memory, both TMS (ES = 0.17, p = 0.015) and tDCS (ES = 0.17, p = 0.021) showed small but significant effects. Age positively moderated the effect of TMS. TDCS was superior to sham for attention/vigilance (ES = 0.20, p = 0.020). These significant effects did not differ across the type of brain disorder. Results were not significant for the other five cognitive domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that both TMS and tDCS elicit a small trans-diagnostic effect on working memory, tDCS also improved attention/vigilance across diagnoses. Effects on the other domains were not significant. Observed ES were small, yet even slight cognitive improvements may facilitate daily functioning. While NIBS can be a well-tolerated treatment, its effects appear domain specific and should be applied only for realistic indications (i.e. to induce a small improvement in working memory or attention).

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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: A novel approach in the treatment of vascular depression

BACKGROUND

Despite the impact of depression in terms of personal suffering and socioeconomic burden, most currently available treatment options are often ineffective. A particularly difficult-to-treat depressive disorder characteristic of the elderly is vascular depression, a late-life depressive syndrome related to a variety of potential vascular mechanisms. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive and effective somatic approach to depression, also showed positive effects on cognitive deficits.

AIM

We performed a double-blind randomized study to investigate the efficacy of tDCS as augmentation strategy to sertraline in the treatment of vascular depression, hypothesizing a positive effect in both depressive symptoms and cognitive functions.

METHODS

We enrolled 93 inpatients over 60 years of age with a diagnosis of vascular depression. Depressive symptoms were weekly assessed (T0, T1, T2) with the 21-items Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS). Cognitive functioning was evaluated with the Milan Overall Dementia Assessment (MODA) at baseline and after the treatment protocol. All patients were randomly assigned into three groups, Group I: one tDCS stimulation per day, Group II: two tDCS stimulations per day, Sham group: one sham tDCS stimulation per day. Stimulation was performed for 10 consecutive working days.

RESULTS

A significant interaction time∗treatment was observed on HDRS scores (F = 14, p < 0.001). All groups improved at T1 but whereas Group II significantly differed from the Sham group (p < 0.001) we observed no difference between Sham and Group I. At T2 all groups improved but Group II showed the greater improvement (vs. Sham p < 0.001; vs. Group I p < 0.001) and the Sham group the smallest (vs. Group I p = 0.005). A significant interaction time∗treatment was also observed on MODA scores (F = 3.31, p = 0.04). Only subjects treated with tDCS improved at T2 (Group I: p < 0.001; Group II: p = 0.007). However, no difference between Group I and II was shown.

CONCLUSION

tDCS as augmentation treatment of an adequate pharmacotherapy is a potential strategy in the management of vascular depression, a disease known to be often unresponsive to antidepressants only. Non-invasiveness, the absence of severe side effects and the possibility of administering it to outpatients at an affordable price make tDCS an important tool in clinical practice.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Cognition in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Systematic Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been implemented in neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by cognitive impairment. However, methodological heterogeneity challenges conclusive remarks. Through a critical analysis of previous conflicting findings and in the light of current neurobiological models of pathophysiology, we qualitatively assessed the effects of tDCS in neuropsychiatric disorders that share neurobiological underpinnings, as to evaluate whether stimulation can improve cognitive deficits in patients' cohorts. We performed a systematic review of tDCS studies targeting cognitive functions in mental disorders and pathological cognitive aging. Data from 41 studies, comprising patients with diagnosis of mood disorders, schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), were included. Results indicate that tDCS has the capacity to enhance processing speed, working memory, and executive functions in patients with mood and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. The evidence of a positive effect on general cognitive functioning and memory is either inconclusive in AD, or weak in MCI. Future directions are discussed for developing standardized stimulation protocols and for translating the technique therapeutic potential into effective clinical practice.

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.

Efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for major depressive disorder: An individual patient data meta-analysis

We evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating acute depressive episodes using individual patient data that provide more precise estimates than aggregate data meta-analysis. A systematic review of placebo-controlled trials on tDCS as only intervention was conducted until December-2018. Data from each study was collated to estimate odds ratio (OR) and number needed to treat (NNT) of response and remission, and depression improvement. Endpoints were pre-determined. Nine eligible studies (572 participants), presenting moderate/high certainty of evidence, were included. Active tDCS was significantly superior to sham for response (30.9% vs. 18.9% respectively; OR = 1.96, 95%CI [1.30-2.95], NNT = 9), remission (19.9% vs. 11.7%, OR = 1.94 [1.19-3.16], NNT = 13) and depression improvement (effect size of β = 0.31, [0.15-0.47]). Moreover, continuous clinical improvement was observed even after the end of acute tDCS treatment. There were no differences in all-cause discontinuation rates and no predictors of response were identified. To conclude, active tDCS was statistically superior to sham in all outcomes, although its clinical effects were moderate.

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.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: A Double-Blind Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial

In the current study, we tried to evaluate the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on treatment-resistant major depression. We carried out a double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial was conducted in University Hospitals. Individuals with less than 50% decrease in the intensity of depression after 8 weeks of treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were recruited. Thirty patients (16 women) with a mean (SD) age of 47.2 (12.0) years were randomly allocated to 2 groups. For the active group we administered 2-mA stimulation 20 minutes for each session, with 30 seconds ramp-up from 0 and 30 seconds ramp-down. For the sham group we administered 30 seconds ramp-up to 2 mA, 10 seconds stimulation, 30 seconds ramp-down, and 20 minutes no current. The anode was fixed on the center of F3, and the cathode on F4, over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We assessed the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at the baseline (mean difference = 1.0, P = .630), at the last session of tDCS, and at 1-month postintervention. There were statistically significant differences in the mean Hamilton scores after the intervention, and 1 month later in favor of active group; P < .001, and P = .003, respectively. Mixed analysis of variance showed a significant difference in the mean scores for active group P = .010 and pattern of change during the study P < .001 in favor of active intervention. We concluded that tDCS is an efficient therapy for patients with resistant major depression, and the benefits would remain at least for 1 month.

Sham tDCS: A hidden source of variability? Reflections for further blinded, controlled trials

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique increasingly used to modulate neural activity in the living brain. In order to establish the neurophysiological, cognitive or clinical effects of tDCS, most studies compare the effects of active tDCS to those observed with a sham tDCS intervention. In most cases, sham tDCS consists in delivering an active stimulation for a few seconds to mimic the sensations observed with active tDCS and keep participants blind to the intervention. However, to date, sham-controlled tDCS studies yield inconsistent results, which might arise in part from sham inconsistencies. Indeed, a multiplicity of sham stimulation protocols is being used in the tDCS research field and might have different biological effects beyond the intended transient sensations. Here, we seek to enlighten the scientific community to this possible confounding factor in order to increase reproducibility of neurophysiological, cognitive and clinical tDCS studies.

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.