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

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.

Time-course of the tDCS antidepressant effect: An individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) shows promise as an effective treatment for depression. However, factors influencing treatment and the time-course of symptom improvements remain to be elucidated.

METHODS

Individual participant data was collected from ten randomised controlled trials of tDCS in depression. Depressive symptom scores were converted to a common scale, and a linear mixed effects individual growth curve model was fit to the data using k-fold cross-validation to prevent overfitting.

RESULTS

Data from 576 participants were analysed (tDCS: n = 311; sham: n = 265), of which 468 were unipolar and 108 had bipolar disorder. tDCS effect sizes reached a peak at approximately 6 weeks, and continued to diverge from sham up to 10 weeks. Significant predictors associated with worse response included higher baseline depression severity, treatment resistance, and those associated with better response included bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that longer treatment courses, lasting at least 6 weeks in duration, may be indicated. Further, our results show that tDCS is effective for depressive symptoms in bipolar disorder. Compared to unipolar depression, participants with bipolar disorder may require additional maintenance sessions to prevent rapid relapse.

A study protocol for an ongoing multi-arm, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial with digital features, using portable transcranial electrical stimulation and internet-based behavioral therapy for major depression disorders: The PSYLECT study

BACKGROUND

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is considered effective and safe for depression, albeit modestly, and prone to logistical burdens when performed in external facilities. Investigation of portable tES (ptES), and potentiation of ptES with remote psychological interventions have shown positive, but preliminary, results.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We report the rationale and design of an ongoing multi-arm, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial with digital features, using ptES and internet-based behavioral therapy (iBT) for major depressive disorder (MDD) (NCT04889976).

METHODS

We will evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability and usability of (1) active ptES + active iBT ('double-active'), (2) active ptES + sham iBT ('ptES-only'), and (3) sham ptES + sham iBT ('double-sham'), in adults with MDD, with a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - 17 item version (HDRS-17) score ≥ 17 at baseline, during 6 weeks. Antidepressants are allowed in stable doses during the trial.

RESULTS

We primarily co-hypothesize changes in HDRS-17 will be greater in (1) 'double-active' compared to 'ptES-only,' (2) 'double-active' compared to 'double-sham,' and (3) 'ptES-only' compared to 'double-sham.' We aim to enroll 210 patients (70 per arm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results should offer new insights regarding the efficacy and scalability of combined ptES and iBT for MDD, in digital mental health.

Glutamatergic System in Depression and Its Role in Neuromodulatory Techniques Optimization

Depressive disorders are among the most common psychiatric conditions and contribute to significant morbidity. Even though the use of antidepressants revolutionized the management of depression and had a tremendous positive impact on the patient's outcome, a significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) show no or partial or response even with adequate treatment. Given the limitations of the prevailing monoamine hypothesis-based pharmacotherapy, glutamate and glutamatergic related pathways may offer an alternative and a complementary option for designing novel intervention strategies. Over the past few decades, there has been a growing interest in understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of glutamatergic dysfunctions in the pathogenesis of depressive disorders and the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options. There is a growing body of evidence for the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques, including transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcutaneous direct current stimulation, transcranial alternating current stimulation, and photo-biomodulation on improving connectivity and neuroplasticity associated with depression. This review attempts to revisit the role of glutamatergic neurotransmission in the etiopathogenesis of depressive disorders and review the current neuroimaging, neurophysiological and clinical evidence of these neuromodulation techniques in the pathophysiology and treatment of depression.

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.

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.

The impact of transcranial Direct Current stimulation on rumination: A systematic review of the sham-controlled studies in healthy and clinical samples

INTRODUCTION

Broadly considered a transdiagnostic feature of psychological disorders, rumination is associated with lower treatment response, slower recovery rates, and higher relapse rates. Accordingly, research has focused on the development of interventions to alleviate rumination. Recently, transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a promising tool to do so.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of sham-controlled tDCS studies targeting rumination among healthy participants or patients with psychiatric disorders, investigating the effectiveness of tDCS in reducing rumination, and assessing the research quality of this nascent field.

RESULTS

We identified nine studies, with five reporting a significant impact of tDCS on rumination. We also outlined a few tDCS parameters (e.g., stimulation duration, electrode size) and research methods' features (e.g., within- versus between-research designs) characterizing those positive-finding studies. However, these studies were characterized by substantial heterogeneity (e.g., methodological flaws, lack of open science practices), precluding any definite statement about the best way to target rumination via tDCS. Moreover, several strong methodological limitations were also present across those studies.

DISCUSSION

Although our systematic review identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the available research about the impact of tDCS on rumination, it calls for strong efforts to improve this nascent field's current methodological caveats. We discuss how open science practices can help to usher this field forward.

Recent advances in electroconvulsive therapy and physical treatments for depression

This article gives an update for practitioners on recent developments in the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and related treatment modalities in the contemporary treatment of depression in the UK. Details are provided on new information on the efficacy and side-effects of ECT both in research studies and in the real world, together with recent research on ECT's mode of delivery. There is a focus on the safe administration of ECT in clinical practice. An update on the regulatory framework for ECT in the UK is provided, together with up-to-date information on the legal situation regarding its prescription. Finally, brief summaries of the current position for other neuromodulatory treatment modalities are given.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation and emotion processing deficits in psychosis and depression

Emotional processing deficits (EPDs) are commonly observed among individuals diagnosed with (1) psychotic disorders (2) and depression. Given that EPDs can impact overall functioning and quality of life, the need to identify effective interventions is critical. To date, our current understanding of treatments for these impairments is limited. However, there is increasing interest in investigating the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). This neuromodulation technique releases a weak electrical current through the brain. Given research suggesting promise for using tDCS to improve symptoms and cognition across psychopathology, this approach may be useful for improving EPDs and related symptoms in psychosis and depression. In the current review, we provide an overview of the literature determining the effects of tDCS for EPDs and related symptoms in these groups. Furthermore, we highlight methodological advances and pinpoint potential future directions.

Cognitive outcomes of the bipolar depression electrical treatment trial (BETTER): a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study

Bipolar depression is associated with marked cognitive deficits. Pharmacological treatments for this condition are limited and may aggravate depressive and cognitive symptoms. Therefore, therapeutic interventions that preserve adequate cognitive functioning are necessary. Our previous results demonstrated significant clinical efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial (BETTER). Here, cognitive outcomes of this study are reported. We randomized 59 patients with bipolar disorder I or II in an acute depressive episode to receive active (12 2 mA, 30-min, anodal-left, cathodal-right prefrontal cortex tDCS sessions) or sham tDCS. Patients were on stable pharmacological regimen for at least 2 weeks. A battery of 12 neuropsychological assessments in five cognitive domains (attention and processing speed, memory, language, inhibitory control, and working memory and executive function) was performed at baseline, after two weeks and at endpoint (week 6). No significant differences between groups over 6 weeks of treatment were observed for any cognitive outcomes. Moreover, no decrease in cognitive performance was observed. Our findings warrant further replication in larger studies. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152878.

The 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

OBJECTIVES

To provide advice and guidance regarding the management of mood disorders, derived from scientific evidence and supplemented by expert clinical consensus to formulate s that maximise clinical utility.

METHODS

Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (e.g. books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Relevant information was appraised and discussed in detail by members of the mood disorders committee, with a view to formulating and developing consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists mood disorders clinical practice guidelines 2020 (MDcpg²⁰²⁰) provide up-to-date guidance regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The guideline is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, primary care physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSION

The MDcpg²⁰²⁰ builds on the previous 2015 guidelines and maintains its joint focus on both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

MOOD DISORDERS COMMITTEE

Gin S Malhi (Chair), Erica Bell, Darryl Bassett, Philip Boyce, Richard Bryant, Philip Hazell, Malcolm Hopwood, Bill Lyndon, Roger Mulder, Richard Porter, Ajeet B Singh and Greg Murray.

The left anterior right temporal (LART) placement for electroconvulsive therapy: A computational modelling study

Electrode placement in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has a major impact on treatment efficacy and cognitive side effects. Left Anterior Right Temporal (LART) is a lesser utilised bilateral montage which may produce more optimal clinical outcomes relative to standard bitemporal ECT. In this study we used computational modelling to explore how stimulation effects from LART and two novel variants (LART - F3 and LART - Frontal) compared to the more common bilateral placements of bitemporal and bifrontal ECT. High resolution finite element human head models were generated from MRI scans of three subjects with Major Depressive Disorder. Differences in regional stimulation were examined through parametric tests for regions of interest and subtraction maps. Compared to bitemporal ECT, LART - Original resulted in significantly greater stimulation of the left cingulate gyrus (hypothesised to be associated with treatment efficacy), and relatively reduced stimulation of the bilateral hippocampi (potentially associated with cognitive side effects). No additional clinical benefit was suggested with the novel LART placements compared to the original LART. The original LART placement is a promising montage for further clinical investigation.

Appraising the effectiveness of electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques in acute major depressive episodes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

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

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.

Predicting treatment effects in unipolar depression: A meta-review

There is increasing interest in clinical prediction models in psychiatry, which focus on developing multivariate algorithms to guide personalized diagnostic or management decisions. The main target of these models is the prediction of treatment response to different antidepressant therapies. This is because the ability to predict response based on patients' personal data may allow clinicians to make improved treatment decisions, and to provide more efficacious or more tolerable medications to the right patient. We searched the literature for systematic reviews about treatment prediction in the context of existing treatment modalities for adult unipolar depression, until July 2019. Treatment effect is defined broadly to include efficacy, safety, tolerability and acceptability outcomes. We first focused on the identification of individual predictor variables that might predict treatment response, and second, we considered multivariate clinical prediction models. Our meta-review included a total of 10 systematic reviews; seven (from 2014 to 2018) focusing on individual predictor variables and three focusing on clinical prediction models. These identified a number of sociodemographic, phenomenological, clinical, neuroimaging, remote monitoring, genetic and serum marker variables as possible predictor variables for treatment response, alongside statistical and machine-learning approaches to clinical prediction model development. Effect sizes for individual predictor variables were generally small and clinical prediction models had generally not been validated in external populations. There is a need for rigorous model validation in large external data-sets to prove the clinical utility of models. We also discuss potential future avenues in the field of personalized psychiatry, particularly the combination of multiple sources of data and the emerging field of artificial intelligence and digital mental health to identify new individual predictor variables.

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.

Precision non-implantable neuromodulation therapies: a perspective for the depressed brain

Current first-line treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD) include pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, one-third of depressed patients do not achieve remission after multiple medication trials, and psychotherapy can be costly and time-consuming. Although non-implantable neuromodulation (NIN) techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, and magnetic seizure therapy are gaining momentum for treating MDD, the efficacy of non-convulsive techniques is still modest, whereas use of convulsive modalities is limited by their cognitive side effects. In this context, we propose that NIN techniques could benefit from a precision-oriented approach. In this review, we discuss the challenges and opportunities in implementing such a framework, focusing on enhancing NIN effects via a combination of individualized cognitive interventions, using closed-loop approaches, identifying multimodal biomarkers, using computer electric field modeling to guide targeting and quantify dosage, and using machine learning algorithms to integrate data collected at multiple biological levels and identify clinical responders. Though promising, this framework is currently limited, as previous studies have employed small samples and did not sufficiently explore pathophysiological mechanisms associated with NIN response and side effects. Moreover, cost-effectiveness analyses have not been performed. Nevertheless, further advancements in clinical trials of NIN could shift the field toward a more “precision-oriented” practice.

Cognitive changes after tDCS and escitalopram treatment in major depressive disorder: Results from the placebo-controlled ELECT-TDCS trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive deficits in major depressive disorder (MDD) are associated with low quality of life and higher suicide risk. Antidepressant drugs have modest to null effects in improving such deficits. Therefore, we investigated the cognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which is a promising antidepressant non-pharmacological intervention, in MDD.

METHODS

An exploratory analysis on cognitive performance was conducted in 243 depressed patients from the Escitalopram vs. Electric Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study (ELECT-TDCS), a sham-controlled study comparing the efficacy of tDCS vs. escitalopram. A neuropsychological battery was applied at baseline and endpoint (10 weeks of treatment) to create composite cognitive scores (processing speed, working memory, and verbal fluency). Linear mixed regression models were used to evaluate changes according to intervention groups, adjusted for confounding variables (age, years of schooling, gender, and benzodiazepine use) and depression improvement.

RESULTS

No cognitive deterioration was observed in any group. Patients receiving tDCS presented reduced practice gains compared to placebo in processing speed. In patients receiving escitalopram vs. placebo and in the subgroup of clinical responders (>50% depression improvement from baseline), those receiving tDCS vs. placebo presented increased performance in verbal fluency. No significant differences between tDCS and escitalopram groups were detected.

LIMITATIONS

Absence of healthy controls.

CONCLUSION

Prefrontal tDCS did not lead to cognitive deficits in depressed patients, although it reduced practice effects in processing speed. tDCS responders presented increased performance in verbal fluency. Further investigation of tDCS cognitive effects in depression is warranted.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Treating Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Negative symptoms represent a substantial burden in schizophrenia. Although preliminary studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is effective for some clusters of symptoms, the clinical benefits for negative symptoms are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS vs sham as an add-on treatment for patients with schizophrenia and predominant negative symptoms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The double-blind Schizophrenia Treatment With Electric Transcranial Stimulation (STARTS) randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2014 to March 2018 in 2 outpatient clinics in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients with schizophrenia with stable negative and positive symptoms and a minimum score of 20 points in the negative symptoms subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Ten sessions of tDCS performed twice a day for 5 days or a sham procedure. The anode and the cathode were positioned over the left prefrontal cortex and the left temporoparietal junction, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at week 6 was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up for an additional 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 100 included patients, 20 (20.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 35.3 (9.3) years. A total of 95 patients (95.0%) finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients receiving active tDCS showed a significantly greater improvement in PANSS score compared with those receiving the sham procedure (difference, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.51-3.79; number needed to treat, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.12-6.99; P < .001). Response rates for negative symptoms (20% improvement or greater) were also higher in the active group (20 of 50 [40%]) vs the sham group (2 of 50 [4%]) (P < .001). These effects persisted at follow-up. Transcranial direct current stimulation was well tolerated, and adverse effects did not differ between groups, except for burning sensation over the scalp in the active group (43.8%) vs the sham group (14.3%) (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Transcranial direct current stimulation was effective and safe in ameliorating negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02535676.

Beyond the target area: an integrative view of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation in patients and athletes

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique used to modulate neural tissue. Neuromodulation apparently improves cognitive functions in several neurologic diseases treatment and sports performance. In this study, we present a comprehensive, integrative review of tDCS for motor rehabilitation and motor learning in healthy individuals, athletes and multiple neurologic and neuropsychiatric conditions. We also report on neuromodulation mechanisms, main applications, current knowledge including areas such as language, embodied cognition, functional and social aspects, and future directions. We present the use and perspectives of new developments in tDCS technology, namely high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) which promises to overcome one of the main tDCS limitation (i.e., low focality) and its application for neurological disease, pain relief, and motor learning/rehabilitation. Finally, we provided information regarding the Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) in clinical applications, Cerebellar tDCS (ctDCS) and its influence on motor learning, and TMS combined with electroencephalography (EEG) as a tool to evaluate tDCS effects on brain function.

Association of BDNF, HTR2A, TPH1, SLC6A4, and COMT polymorphisms with tDCS and escitalopram efficacy: ancillary analysis of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with neuroplasticity and activity of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF, rs6265), the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4, rs25531), the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1, rs1800532), the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 2A (HTR2A, rs6311, rs6313, rs7997012), and the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT, rs4680) genes, are associated with efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in major depression.

METHODS

Data from the Escitalopram vs. Electrical Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study (ELECT-TDCS) were used. Participants were antidepressant-free at baseline and presented with an acute, moderate-to-severe unipolar depressive episode. They were randomized to receive escitalopram/tDCS-sham (n=75), tDCS/placebo-pill (n=75), or placebo-pill/sham-tDCS (n=45). General linear models assessed the interaction between treatment group and allele-wise carriers. Additional analyses were performed for each group and each genotype separately.

RESULTS

Pairwise group comparisons (tDCS vs. placebo, tDCS vs. escitalopram, and escitalopram vs. placebo) did not identify alleles associated with depression improvement. In addition, exploratory analyses also did not identify any SNP unequivocally associated with improvement of depression in any treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Larger, combined datasets are necessary to identify candidate genes for tDCS response.

Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS) Versus Venlafaxine ER In The Treatment Of Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Single-Center Study With Open-Label, Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), a relatively new neuromodulation approach, provides some evidence of an antidepressant effect. This randomized, 4-week, double-blind study with 8-week, open-label, follow-up compared the efficacy and tolerability of left anodal tDCS with venlafaxine ER (VNF) in the treatment of depression and prevention of early relapse.

METHODS

Subjects (n = 57) received tDCS (2 mA, 20 sessions, 30 mins) plus placebo (n = 29) or VNF plus sham tDCS (n = 28). Responders to both interventions entered the open-label follow-up. The primary outcome was score change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at week 4 of the study. Secondary outcomes were response, remission, dropout rates and relapse rates within the follow-up.

The mean change in the MADRS score from baseline to week for patients treated with tDCS was 7.69 (95% CI, 5.09-10.29) points and 9.64 (95% CI, 6.20-13.09) points for patients from the VNF group, a nonsignificant difference (1.95, 95% CI -2.25-6.16; t (55) = 0.93, p= 0.36, Cohen´s d = 0.24). There were no significant between-group differences in the MADRS scores from baseline to endpoint (intention-to-treat analysis). The response/remission rate for tDCS (24%/17%) and VNF (43%/32%) as well as the dropout rate (tDCS/VNF; 6/6) did not differ significantly between groups. In the follow-up, relapse (tDCS/VNF; 1/2) and dropout (tDCS/VNF; 2/3) rates were low and comparable.

LIMITATIONS

A relatively small sample size and short duration of the antidepressant treatment; no placebo arm.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study found a similar efficacy of tDCS and VNF in the acute treatment of depression and prevention of early relapse. The real clinical usefulness of tDCS and its optimal parameters in the treatment of depression should be further validated.

A Critical Review and Synthesis of Clinical and Neurocognitive Effects of Noninvasive Neuromodulation Antidepressant Therapies

There is a plethora of current and emerging antidepressant therapies in the psychiatric armamentarium for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Noninvasive neuromodulation therapies are one such therapeutic category; they typically involve the transcranial application of electrical or magnetic stimulation to modulate cortical and subcortical brain activity. Although electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been used since the 1930s, with the prevalence of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), the past three decades have seen a proliferation of noninvasive neuromodulation antidepressant therapeutic development. The purpose of this critical review was to synthesize information regarding the clinical effects, neurocognitive effects, and possible mechanisms of action of noninvasive neuromodulation therapies, including ECT, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, and transcranial direct current stimulation. Considerable research has provided substantial information regarding their antidepressant and neurocognitive effects, but their mechanisms of action remain unknown. Although the four therapies vary in how they modulate neurocircuitry and their resultant antidepressant and neurocognitive effects, they are nonetheless useful for patients with acute and chronic major depressive disorder and TRD. Continued research is warranted to inform dosimetry, algorithm for administration, and integration among the noninvasive neuromodulation therapies and with other antidepressant strategies to continue to maximize their safety and antidepressant benefit.