Hospital production cost of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of depression

The Economics of Treatment for Depression

The global prevalence of depression has risen over the past three decades across all socioeconomic groups and geographic regions, with a particularly rapid increase in prevalence among adolescents (aged 12-17 years) in the United States. Depression imposes large health, economic, and societal costs, including reduced life span and quality of life, medical costs, and reduced educational attainment and workplace productivity. A wide range of treatment modalities for depression are available, but socioeconomic disparities in treatment access are driven by treatment costs, lack of culturally tailored options, stigma, and provider shortages, among other barriers. This review highlights the need for comparative research to better understand treatments' relative efficacy, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and potential heterogeneity in efficacy across socioeconomic groups and country and cultural contexts. To address the growing burden of depression, mental health policy could consider reducing restrictions on the supply of providers, implementing digital interventions, reducing stigma, and promoting healthy lifestyles.

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.

Efficacy of tDCS to enhance virtual reality exposure therapy response in acrophobia: A randomized controlled trial

[BACKGROUND]: Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) has been recognized as an effective treatment for specific phobias and has the potential to overcome the limitations of traditional exposure therapy. The pursuit of non-invasive brain stimulation provides a practical means of augmenting VRET. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, stimulates the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), with the potential to enhance the effects of exposure therapy. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine whether tDCS enhanced the effects of VRET in acrophobia. [METHOD]: This study recruited 64 college students with significant fear of height (based on the Acrophobia Questionnaire, AQ). Finally, 61 participants were randomly allocated to the tDCS active-stimulated group (n = 30) or the sham-stimulated group (n = 31). After stimulation, VRET was conducted, and clinical indices were recorded. The AQ was used as the first primary outcome, and Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) and the Heights Interpretation Questionnaire (HIQ) were used as secondary outcomes. [RESULT]: There was a significant reduction in psychometric and behavioral anxiety measurements from pre to post treatment as indicated by main effects for the factor time (AQ-Anxiety: F (2.60) = 139.55, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.83; AQ-Avoidance: F (2.60) = 53.73, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.69; HIQ: F (2.60) = 128.12, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.81; STAI-Y-S: F (2.60) = 15.44, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.34; BAI: F (2.60) = 73.81, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.71). Compared with the sham-stimulated group, the reduction of AQ-Anxiety and SUDS in the first exposure trial (F (2,60) = 8.56, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.23; t = 2.34, p = 0.024, d = 0.61) was significantly faster in the active group. At follow-up, there was also a further reduction in AQ anxiety and avoidance (Anxiety: M = 56.51 ± 27.19; main effect time F (1,60) = 25.16, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.35; Avoidance: M = 12.57 ± 7.97; main effect time F (1,60) = 31.40, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.45) without interaction time*group (Anxiety: F (1.60) = 0.12, p = 0.740, η2 = 0.00; Avoidance: F (1.60) = 0.64, p = 0.430, η2 = 0.02). [CONCLUSION]: Results could be explained tDCS could accelerate the effects of VRET on acrophobia by stimulating mPFC, indicating that tDCS may be used as an enhancement technique for exposure therapy for specific phobias.

A single tDCS session can enhance numerical competence

While numerical skills are increasingly important in modern life, few interventions have been developed to support those with numeracy skills difficulties. Previous studies have demonstrated that applying transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) can improve numerical skills. However, tDCS interventions designed to induce lasting changes typically involve reapplying brain-stimulation over several days. Repeated tDCS application can increase the risks associated with the procedure, as well as restricts the transferability of the method to a wider population, particularly those who may experience mobility issues, such as stroke survivors with acalculia. The current study investigated whether a single session of tDCS (anodal to right parietal lobe and cathodal to left parietal lobe), followed by four self-practice sessions without tDCS, could result in enhancement of numerical skills. Nineteen healthy adults (n = 10 tDCS, n = 9 sham control) implicitly learnt the magnitude association of nine arbitrary symbols, previously used by Cohen Kadosh et al. (2010). Numerical proficiency was assessed using number-to-space task, while automaticity was assessed with numerical Stroop. Results revealed that single-session tDCS had a significant effect on participants' accuracy on the number-to-space tasks, but not on the numerical Stroop task's congruity effect, implying automaticity may require longer practice. We conclude that a single session of tDCS should be considered as an avenue for interventions.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for bipolar depression: systematic reviews of clinical evidence and biological underpinnings

Despite multiple available treatments for bipolar depression (BD), many patients face sub-optimal responses. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been advocated in the management of different conditions, including BD, especially in treatment-resistant cases. The optimal dose and timing of tDCS, the mutual influence with other concurrently administered interventions, long-term efficacy, overall safety, and biological underpinnings nonetheless deserve additional assessment. The present study appraised the existing clinical evidence about tDCS for bipolar depression, delving into the putative biological underpinnings with a special emphasis on cellular and molecular levels, with the ultimate goal of providing a translational perspective on the matter. Two separate systematic reviews across the PubMed database since inception up to August 8^th 2022 were performed, with fourteen clinical and nineteen neurobiological eligible studies. The included clinical studies encompass 207 bipolar depression patients overall and consistently document the efficacy of tDCS, with a reduction in depression scores after treatment ranging from 18% to 92%. The RCT with the largest sample clearly showed a significant superiority of active stimulation over sham. Mild-to-moderate and transient adverse effects are attributed to tDCS across these studies. The review of neurobiological literature indicates that several molecular mechanisms may account for the antidepressant effect of tDCS in BD patients, including the action on calcium homeostasis in glial cells, the enhancement of LTP, the regulation of neurotrophic factors and inflammatory mediators, and the modulation of the expression of plasticity-related genes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the matter to concurrently provide a synthesis of the clinical evidence and an in-depth appraisal of the putative biological underpinnings, providing consistent support for the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tDCS.

Optimized APPS-tDCS electrode position, size, and distance doubles the on-target stimulation magnitude in 3000 electric field models

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a widely used noninvasive brain stimulation technique with mixed results to date. A potential solution is to apply more efficient stimulation to ensure that each participant receives sufficient cortical activation. In this four-part study, we used electric field (E-field) modeling to systematically investigate the cortical effects of conventional and novel tDCS electrode montages, with the goal of creating a new easily adoptable form of tDCS that induces higher and more focal E-fields. We computed 3000 anatomically accurate, MRI-based E-field models using 2 mA tDCS to target the left primary motor cortex in 200 Human Connectome Project (HCP) participants and tested the effects of: 1. Novel Electrode Position, 2. Electrode Size, and 3. Inter-Electrode Distance on E-field magnitude and focality. In particular, we examined the effects of placing electrodes surrounding the corticomotor target in the anterior and posterior direction (anterior posterior pad surround tDCS; APPS-tDCS). We found that electrode position, electrode size, and inter-electrode distance all significantly impact the cortical E-field magnitude and focality of stimulation (all p < 0.0001). At the same 2 mA scalp stimulation intensity, APPS-tDCS with smaller than conventional 1 × 1 cm electrodes surrounding the neural target deliver more than double the on-target cortical E-field (APPS-tDCS: average of 0.55 V/m from 2 mA; M1-SO and bilateral M1: both 0.27 V/m from 2 mA) while stimulating only a fraction of the off-target brain regions; 2 mA optimized APPS-tDCS produces 4.08 mA-like cortical E-fields. In sum, this new optimized APPS-tDCS method produces much stronger cortical stimulation intensities at the same 2 mA scalp intensity. APPS-tDCS also more focally stimulates the cortex at the intended target, using simple EEG coordinate locations and without MRI scans. This APPS-tDCS method is adoptable to any existing, commercially available tDCS device and can be used to ensure sufficient cortical activation in each person. Future directions include testing whether APPS-tDCS produces larger and more consistent therapeutic tDCS effects.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Electric Stimulation during the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Literature Review and Three Case Reports

Introduction: The perinatal period is an at-risk period for the emergence or decompensation of psychiatric disorders. Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is an effective and safe treatment for many psychiatric disorders. Given the reluctance to use pharmacological treatments during pregnancy or breastfeeding, tES may be an interesting treatment to consider. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tES in the perinatal period through a systematic literature review followed by three original case reports. Method: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of MEDLINE and ScienceDirect was undertaken to identify studies on tES on women during the perinatal period. The initial research was conducted until 31 December 2021 and search terms included: tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation, tACS, transcranial alternating current stimulation, tRNS, transcranial random noise stimulation, pregnancy, perinatal, postnatal, and postpartum. Results: Seven studies reporting on 33 women during the perinatal period met the eligibility criteria. No serious adverse effects for the mother or child were reported. Data were limited to the use of tES during pregnancy in patients with schizophrenia or unipolar depression. In addition, we reported three original case reports illustrating the efficacy and safety of tDCS: in a pregnant woman with bipolar depression, in a pregnant woman with post-traumatic stress disorder (sham tDCS), and in a breastfeeding woman with postpartum depression. Conclusions: The results are encouraging, making tES a potentially safe and effective treatment in the perinatal period. Larger studies are needed to confirm these initial results, and any adverse effects on the mother or child should be reported. In addition, research perspectives on the medico-economic benefits of tES, and its realization at home, are to be investigated in the future.

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.

Feasibility of Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Active Fully Embodied Virtual Reality for Visual Height Intolerance: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) are individually increasingly used in psychiatric research.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Our study aimed to investigate the feasibility of combining tDCS and wireless 360° full immersive active and embodied VRET to reduce height-induced anxiety.

METHODS

We carried out a pilot randomized, double-blind, controlled study associating VRET (two 20 min sessions with a 48 h interval, during which, participants had to cross a plank at rising heights in a building in construction) with online tDCS (targeting the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) in 28 participants. The primary outcomes were the sense of presence level and the tolerability. The secondary outcomes were the anxiety level (Subjective Unit of Discomfort) and the salivary cortisol concentration.

RESULTS

We confirmed the feasibility of the association between tDCS and fully embodied VRET associated with a good sense of presence without noticeable adverse effects. In both groups, a significant reduction in the fear of height was observed after two sessions, with only a small effect size of add-on tDCS (0.1) according to the SUD. The variations of cortisol concentration differed in the tDCS and sham groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed the feasibility of the association between wireless online tDCS and active, fully embodied VRET. The optimal tDCS paradigm remains to be determined in this context to increase effect size and then adequately power future clinical studies assessing synergies between both techniques.

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.

Cost-utility analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation therapy with and without virtual illusion for neuropathic pain for adults with spinal cord injury in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a cost-utility analysis comparing virtual illusion (VI) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combination therapy, tDCS alone and standard pharmacological care in Ontario, Canada from a societal perspective over a three-month time horizon.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis using Markov model methods.

SETTING

Community setting in Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain (NP) resistant to pharmacological therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Virtual illusion and transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation alone and standard pharmacological therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of VI and tDCS therapy cost is $3,396 per QALY (2020 Canadian dollars) when compared to standard care. The incremental cost per QALY of tDCS therapy alone is $33,167. VI and tDCS therapy had lower incremental costs (-$519) and higher incremental QALYs (0.026) compared to tDCS alone. From a public healthcare payer perspective, there is a 74% probability that VI and tDCS therapy and 54% probability that tDCS alone would be cost effective at a $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Our findings remained relatively robust in various scenario analyses.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that at three-months after therapy, VI and tDCS combination therapy may be more cost effective than tDCS therapy alone. Based on conventional health technology funding thresholds, VI and tDCS combination therapy merits consideration for the treatment of NP in adults with spinal cord injuries.

Noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), given some evidence for improvements in cognition and clinical symptoms. However, despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS and tDCS are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically appraise rTMS and tDCS studies in ADHD to inform good research and clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic search (up to February 2019) identified 18 studies (rTMS 4, tDCS 14; 311 children and adults with ADHD) stimulating mainly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). We included 12 anodal tDCS studies (232 children and adults with ADHD) in 3 random-effects meta-analyses of cognitive measures of attention, inhibition and processing speed.

RESULTS

The review of rTMS and tDCS showed positive effects in some functions but not others, and little evidence for clinical improvement. The meta-analyses of 1 to 5 sessions of anodal tDCS over mainly the left or bilateral dlPFC showed trend-level improvements in inhibition and processing speed, but not in attention.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient age and outcome measures limited the interpretation of findings.

CONCLUSION

The review and meta-analysis showed limited evidence that 1 to 5 sessions of rTMS and tDCS, mostly of the dlPFC, improved clinical or cognitive measures of ADHD. These findings did not support using rTMS or tDCS of the dlPFC as an alternative neurotherapy for ADHD as yet. Larger, multi-session stimulation studies identifying more optimal sites and stimulation parameters in combination with cognitive training could achieve larger effects.

Transcranial electrical stimulation motor threshold can estimate individualized tDCS dosage from reverse-calculation electric-field modeling

Background:

Unique amongst brain stimulation tools, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) currently lacks an easy or widely implemented method for individualizing dosage.

Objective:

We developed a method of reverse-calculating electric-field (E-field) models based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans that can estimate individualized tDCS dose. We also evaluated an MRI-free method of individualizing tDCS dose by measuring transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor threshold (MT) and single pulse, suprathreshold transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) MT and regressing it against E-field modeling. Key assumptions of reverse-calculation E-field modeling, including the size of region of interest (ROI) analysis and the linearity of multiple E-field models were also tested.

Methods:

In 29 healthy adults, we acquired TMS MT, TES MT, and anatomical T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI scans with a fiducial marking the motor hotspot. We then computed a “reverse-calculated tDCS dose” of tDCS applied at the scalp needed to cause a 1.00 V/m E-field at the cortex. Finally, we examined whether the predicted E-field values correlated with each participant’s measured TMS MT or TES MT.

Results:

We were able to determine a reverse-calculated tDCS dose for each participant using a 5 × 5 x 5 voxel grid region of interest (ROI) approach (average = 6.03 mA, SD = 1.44 mA, range = 3.75–9.74 mA). The Transcranial Electrical Stimulation MT, but not the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation MT, significantly correlated with the ROI-based reverse-calculated tDCS dose determined by E-field modeling (R² = 0.45, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Reverse-calculation E-field modeling, alone or regressed against TES MT, shows promise as a method to individualize tDCS dose. The large range of the reverse-calculated tDCS doses between subjects underscores the likely need to individualize tDCS dose. Future research should further examine the use of TES MT to individually dose tDCS as an MRI-free method of dosing tDCS.

Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Post-Thoracotomy Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Study and A Feasibility For Its Future Implementation

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS, n = 27) received tDCS over the left primary motor cortex for five days, whereas patients assigned to the control group (sham-tDCS, n = 28) received sham tDCS stimulations. All patients received postoperative PCA-IV morphine. For cost-effectiveness analysis we used data about total amount of PCA-IV morphine and maximum visual analog pain scale with cough (VASP-C_max). Direct costs of hospitalization were assumed as equal for both groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the incremental cost (RSD or US$) per incremental gain in mm of VASP-C_max reduction. Calculated ICER was 510.87 RSD per VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Conversion on USA market (USA data 1.325 US$ for 1 mg of morphine) revealed ICER of 189.08 US$ or 18960.39 RSD/1 VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Cost-effectiveness expressed through ICER showed significant reduction of PCA-IV morphine costs in the tDCS group. Further investigation of tDCS benefits with regards to reduction of postoperative pain treatment costs should also include the long-term benefits of reduced morphine use.

Cost-utility analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in non-treatment-resistant depression: the DISCO randomised controlled study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Depression is among the most widespread psychiatric disorders in France. Psychiatric disorders are associated with considerable social costs, amounting to €22.6 billion for treatment and psychotropic medication in 2011. Treatment as usual (TAU), mainly consisting of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, is effective for only a third of patients and in most cases fails to prevent treatment resistance and chronicity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) consists in a non-invasive and painless application of low-intensity electric current to the cerebral cortex through the scalp. Having proved effective in depressed patients, it could be used in combination with TAU to great advantage. The objective is to compare, for the first time ever, the cost-utility of tDCS-TAU and of TAU alone for the treatment of a depressive episode that has been refractory to one or two drug treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper, based on the DISCO study protocol, focuses on the design of a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label multicentre economic study to be conducted in France. It will include 214 patients with unipolar or bipolar depression, assigning them to two parallel arms: group A (tDCS-TAU) and group B (TAU alone). The primary outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in cost between each strategy to the difference in their effects. Their effects will be expressed as numbers of quality-adjusted life-years, determined through administration of the EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire over a 12-month period to patients (EQ-5D-5L). Expected benefits are the reduction of treatment resistance and suicidal ideation as well as social and professional costs of depression. Should depression-related costs fall significantly, tDCS might be considered an efficient treatment for depression.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by a French ethics committee, the CPP--Est IV (Comité de Protection des Personnes-Strasbourg). Data are to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RCB 2018-A00474-51; NCT03758105.