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

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.

The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Exercise on Salivary S100B Protein Indicated Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and exercise on blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability in humans as assessed through the quantification of the salivary protein biomarker S100B. It was hypothesized that active tDCS would induce a significant increase in salivary S100B concentration when compared with sham stimulation and no stimulation. It also was hypothesized that the increase in salivary S100B concentration would be greater after active tDCS and exercise than after tDCS or exercise alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 13 healthy adults (five male, eight female), ranging in age from 21 to 32 years, underwent three experimental conditions (active tDCS, sham tDCS, inactive control). To assess exercise- and tDCS-induced changes in BBB permeability, S100B in saliva was measured. Saliva samples were taken before tDCS, after tDCS, and immediately after a ramped cycling time-to-exhaustion (TTE) task. Active tDCS involved the application of anodal stimulation over the primary motor cortex for 20 minutes at 2 mA.

RESULTS

S100B concentrations in the control condition did not differ significantly from the active condition (estimate = 0.10, SE = 0.36, t = 0.27, p = 0.79) or the sham condition (estimate = 0.33, SE = 0.36, t = 0.89, p = 0.38). Similarly, S100B concentrations at baseline did not differ significantly from post-intervention (estimate = -0.35, SE = 0.34, t = -1.03, p = 0.31) or post-TTE (estimate = 0.66, SE = 0.34, t = 1.93, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This research provides novel insight into the effect of tDCS and exercise on S100B-indicated BBB permeability in humans. Although the effects of tDCS were not significant, increases in salivary S100B after a fatiguing cycling task may indicate exercise-induced changes in BBB permeability.

Evaluating the effects of tDCS on depressive and anxiety symptoms from a transdiagnostic perspective: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Depressive and anxiety symptoms are prevalent among patients with various clinical conditions, resulting in diminished emotional well-being and impaired daily functioning. The neural mechanisms underlying these symptoms, particularly across different disorders, remain unclear, limiting the effectiveness of conventional treatments. Therefore, it is crucial to elucidate the neural underpinnings of depressive and anxiety symptoms and investigate novel, effective treatments across clinical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that can help understand the neural underpinnings of symptoms and facilitate the development of interventions, addressing the two research gaps at both neural and clinical levels. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the therapeutic efficacy of tDCS in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms among individuals with diverse clinical diagnoses. This review evaluated evidence from fifty-six randomized, sham-controlled trials that administered repeated tDCS sessions with a parallel design, applying a three-level meta-analytic model. tDCS targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) at 2-mA intensity demonstrates moderate efficacy in alleviating depressive symptoms, identifying the left DLPFC as a transdiagnostic neural mechanism of depressive symptoms across clinical conditions. In comparison, the findings on anxiety symptoms demonstrate greater heterogeneity. tDCS over the left DLPFC is effective in reducing depressive symptoms and shows promising effects in alleviating anxiety symptoms among individuals with diverse diagnoses. These findings enhance our understanding of the neuropsychological basis of depressive and anxiety symptoms, laying the groundwork for the development of more effective tDCS interventions applicable across clinical conditions.

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.

Comparable Efficacy of Repeated Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Their Combination in Improvement of Cold and Hot Cognitive Functions and Amelioration of Depressive Symptoms

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of repeated transcranial direct current stimulation (rtDCS), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and their combination (rtDCS-CBT) in the treatment of cognitive dysfunction, social cognition, and depressive symptoms in women diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD). A total of 40 female participants with MDD were randomly assigned to one of four groups: rtDCS, CBT, rtDCS-CBT, and a control group. The participants' depressive symptoms, executive functions, and social cognition were assessed at baseline, preintervention, postintervention, and during a 1-month follow-up. The rtDCS group received 10 sessions of anodal dorsolateral and cathodal ventromedial prefrontal cortex (2 mA for 20 minutes). The CBT group received 10 sessions of traditional CBT, whereas the combined group received CBT after the tDCS sessions. The results of the analysis of variance indicated that all intervention groups demonstrated significant improvements in depressive symptoms, cognitive dysfunction, and social cognition compared with the control group (all p < 0.001). Furthermore, the rtDCS-CBT group exhibited significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms when compared with each intervention alone (all p < 0.001). Notably, working memory improvements were observed only in the rtDCS group ( p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study suggests that both CBT and tDCS, either individually or in combination, have a positive therapeutic impact on enhancing executive functions, theory of mind, and depressive symptoms in women with MDD.

Computational modeling of electric fields for prefrontal tDCS across patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders

This cross-diagnostic study aims to computationally model electric field (efield) for prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation in mood disorders and schizophrenia. Enrolled were patients with major depressive disorder (n = 23), bipolar disorder (n = 24), schizophrenia (n = 23), and healthy controls (n = 23). The efield was simulated using SimNIBS software (ver.2.1.1). Electrodes were placed at the left and right prefrontal areas and the current intensity was set to 2 mA intensity. Schizophrenia and major depressive disorder groups showed significantly lower 99.5th percentile efield strength than healthy controls. In voxel-wise analysis, patients with schizophrenia showed a significant reduction of simulated efield strength in the bilateral frontal lobe, cerebellum and brain stem compared with healthy controls. Among the patients with schizophrenia, reduction of simulated efield strength was not significantly correlated with psychiatric symptoms or global functioning. The patients with bipolar disorder showed no significant difference in simulated efield strength compared with healthy controls, and there was no significant difference between the clinical groups. Our results suggest attenuated electrophysiological response to transcranial direct current stimulation to the prefrontal cortex in patients with schizophrenia, and to some extent in patients with major depressive disorder.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders

Background

The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a key node of the frontal cognitive circuit. It is involved in executive control and many cognitive processes. Abnormal activities of DLPFC are likely associated with many psychiatric diseases. Modulation of DLPFC may have potential beneficial effects in many neural and psychiatric diseases. One of the widely used non-invasive neuromodulation technique is called transcranial direct current stimulation (or tDCS), which is a portable and affordable brain stimulation approach that uses direct electrical currents to modulate brain functions.

Objective

This review aims to discuss the results from the past two decades which have shown that tDCS can relieve clinical symptoms in various neurological and psychiatric diseases.

Methods

Here, we performed searches on PubMed to collect clinical and preclinical studies that using tDCS as neuromodulation technique, DLPFC as the stimulation target in treating neuropsychiatric disorders. We summarized the stimulation sites, stimulation parameters, and the overall effects in these studies.

Results

Overall, tDCS stimulation of DLPFC could alleviate the clinical symptoms of schizophrenia, depression, drug addiction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other mental disorders.

Conclusion

The stimulation parameters used in these studies were different from each other. The lasting effect of stimulation was also not consistent. Nevertheless, DLPFC is a promising target for non-invasive stimulation in many psychiatric disorders. TDCS is a safe and affordable neuromodulation approach that has potential clinical uses. Larger clinical studies will be needed to determine the optimal stimulation parameters in each condition.

Determining the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Tinnitus, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10–15% of people, a significant proportion of whom also experience symptoms such as depression or anxiety that negatively affect their quality of life. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique involving constant low-intensity direct current delivered via scalp electrodes. It is a potential treatment option for tinnitus, as well as tinnitus-related conditions such as depression and anxiety. This systematic review estimates the effects of tDCS on outcomes relevant to tinnitus. In addition, it sheds light on the relationship between stimulation parameters and the effect of tDCS on these outcomes; (2) Methods: Exhaustive searches of electronic databases were conducted. Randomised controlled trials were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: tinnitus symptom severity, anxiety, or depression. Where available, data on quality of life, adverse effects, and neurophysiological changes were also reviewed. GRADE was used to assess the certainty in the estimate; (3) Results: Meta-analyses revealed a statistically significant reduction in tinnitus (moderate certainty) and depression (low certainty)-but not anxiety-following active tDCS compared to sham control. Network meta-analyses revealed potential optimal stimulation parameters; (4) Conclusions: The evidence synthesised in this review suggests tDCS has the potential to reduce symptom severity in tinnitus and depression. It further narrows down the number of potentially optimal stimulation parameters.

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation (NINCEN) on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance are inconsistent in different studies. Previous meta-analyses on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cerebral electrotherapy stimulation (CES) suggested that these methods are effective on depression. However, not all types of NINECN were included; results on anxiety and sleep disturbance were lacking and the influence of different populations and treatment parameters was not completely analyzed. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and CINAHL before March 2021 and included published randomized clinical trials of all types of NINCEN for symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep in clinical and non-clinical populations. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The main outcome was change in the severity of depressive symptoms after NINCEN treatment. A total of 58 studies on NINCEN were included in the meta-analysis. Active tDCS showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.544), anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.667) and response rate (odds ratio = 1.9594) compared to sham control. CES also had a significant effect on depression (Hedges' g = 0.654) and anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.711). For all types of NINCEN, active stimulation was significantly effective on depression, anxiety, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, total sleep time, etc. Our results showed that tDCS has significant effects on both depression and anxiety and that these effects are robust for different populations and treatment parameters. The rational expectation of the tDCS effect is 'response' rather than 'remission'. CES also is effective for depression and anxiety, especially in patients with disorders of low severity.

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.

Follow-up effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the major depressive episode: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an effective treatment during the acute phase of a major depressive episode (MDE), although the evidence for its follow-up efficacy is mixed. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus (EMBASE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and additional sources were searched from inception to April 29, 2021. Studies that followed up adults treated with tDCS during an MDE - using (interventional) and/or not using (observational) tDCS in the follow-up period were included. The primary outcome was the Hedges' g for the follow-up depression scores. Small study effects and sources of heterogeneity were explored. 427 studies were retrieved and 11 trials (13 datasets, n = 311) were included, most presenting moderate bias. Results showed a follow-up depression improvement (k = 13, g = -0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.28; -0.34, I² = 84.0%), which was probably driven by the interventional studies (k = 7, g= -1.12, 95% CI: -1.84; -0.40, I² = 87.1%). No predictor of response was associated with the outcome. No risk of publication bias was found. Significant between-study heterogeneity may have influenced the overall results. Our findings suggest that tDCS produces effects beyond the intervention period during MDEs. Maintenance sessions are advised in future research.

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.

Treatment effect variability in brain stimulation across psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis of variance

Noninvasive brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are promising add-on treatments for a number of psychiatric conditions. Yet, some of the initial excitement is wearing off. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) have found inconsistent results. This inconsistency is suspected to be the consequence of variation in treatment effects and solvable by identifying responders in RCTs and individualizing treatment. However, is there enough evidence from RCTs that patients respond differently to treatment? This question can be addressed by comparing the variability in the active stimulation group with the variability in the sham group. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed and included all double-blinded, sham-controlled RCTs and crossover trials that used TMS or tDCS in adults with a unipolar or bipolar depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or obsessive compulsive disorder. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to ensure data quality and validity, we extracted a measure of variability of the primary outcome. A total of 130 studies with 5748 patients were considered in the analysis. We calculated variance-weighted variability ratios for each comparison of active stimulation vs sham and entered them into a random-effects model. We hypothesized that treatment effect variability in TMS or tDCS would be reflected by increased variability after active compared with sham stimulation, or in other words, a variability ratio greater than one. Across diagnoses, we found only a minimal increase in variability after active stimulation compared with sham that did not reach statistical significance (variability ratio = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97, 1.08, P = 0.358). In conclusion, this study found little evidence for treatment effect variability in brain stimulation, suggesting that the need for personalized or stratified medicine is still an open question.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for knee osteoarthritis: a single-blind randomized sham-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pain and other symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We performed a single-blind randomized sham-controlled trial with two parallel arms in an outpatient clinic of physical medicine and rehabilitation at a teaching hospital. We randomized 54 patients, 30-70 years of age, with knee osteoarthritis into two groups. They had morning stiffness ≤ 30 min, knee pain ≥ 3 months, joint crepitus, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1 or 2 on radiographs. For the active stimulation we administered 2 mA current, 20 min for each session and for the sham group 30 s stimulation and 20 min no current. Using the 10/20 International EEG system, the anode was fixed over the contralateral primary motor cortex (C3 or C4), and the cathode was placed on the ipsilateral supraorbital region (Fp1 or Fp2), with respect to the included knee. The program was repeated once daily over 5 consecutive days. Both groups received acetaminophen. We assessed the patients before and after the interventions, and three months post-intervention. The primary outcome was knee pain on the visual analog scale, and the secondary outcome was the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant reduction in the intensity of pain within sham and active groups (both p < 0.001), but no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.226). Analyses of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores showed no clinically important changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcranial direct current stimulation does not reduce knee pain, does not abate other symptoms, and does not restore knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The pain reduction in our study could be attributed to either placebo or the acetaminophen effect.

A systematic review of transcranial direct current stimulation effects in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) stands out as the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood, with global prevalence ranging from 3.4% to 7•2%. Its cognitive symptoms result from the combination of complex etiological processes encompassing genetic and environmental components. Available therapeutic approaches are associated with significant challenges such as modest efficacy or side effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool for enhancing cognitive performance in neuropsychiatric disorders. Trials investigating its applicability in ADHD have showed propitious, however, still preliminary findings.

METHODS

We performed a systemic review by searching on Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Embase using the descriptors: "attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder" or "ADHD"; and "transcranial direct current stimulation" or "tDCS"; following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 383 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 45 studies were assessed for eligibility, and after careful review, 11 manuscripts applying tDCS in ADHD were included. Significant improvements in attention, inhibitory control and working memory were reported, in addition to increased brain connectivity following use of active tDCS.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was the small number of trials investigating use of tDCS in ADHD. Study methods and outcome measures were quite variable, and generally did not include long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the extent literature indicates promising findings, the available data remains highly preliminary. Further trials evaluating the efficacy of tDCS for ADHD, with longer follow-up, are necessary. These studies will be needed to determine the optimal protocol for clinical efficacy.

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.