Investigating brain structure and tDCS response in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is characterized by intrusive thoughts and repetitive behaviors, with associated brain abnormalities in various regions. This study explores the correlation between neural biomarkers and the response to transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in OCD patients. Using structural MRI data from two tDCS trials involving 55 OCD patients and 28 controls, cortical thickness, and gray matter morphometry was analyzed. Findings revealed thicker precentral and paracentral areas in OCD patients, compared to control (p < 0.001). Correlations between cortical thickness and treatment response indicated a significant association between a thinner precentral area and reduced Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) scores (p = 0.02). While results highlight the complexity of treatment response predictors, this study sheds light on potential neural markers for tDCS response in OCD patients. Further investigations with larger datasets are warranted to better understand the underpinnings of these biomarkers and their implications for personalized treatment approaches.

Exploring driving anger-caused impairment of takeover performance among professional taxi drivers during partially automated driving

Partially automated systems are expected to reduce road crashes related to human error, even amongst professional drivers. Consequently, the applications of these systems into the taxi industry would potentially improve transportation safety. However, taxi drivers are prone to experiencing driving anger, which may subsequently affect their takeover performance. In this research, we explored how driving anger emotion affects taxi drivers' driving performance in various takeover scenarios, namely Mandatory Automation-Initiated transition (MAIT), Mandatory Driver-Initiated transition (MDIT), and Optional Driver-Initiated transition (ODIT). Forty-seven taxi drivers participated in this 2·3 mixed design simulator experiment (between-subjects: anger vs. calmness; within-subjects: MAIT vs. MDIT vs. ODIT). Compared to calmness, driving anger emotion led to a narrower field of attention (e.g., smaller standard deviations of horizontal fixation points position) and worse hazard perception (e.g., longer saccade latency, smaller amplitude of skin conductance responses), which resulted in longer takeover time and inferior vehicle control stability (e.g., higher standard deviations of lateral position) in MAIT and MDIT scenarios. Angry taxi drivers were more likely to deactivate vehicle automation and take over the vehicle in a more aggressive manner (e.g., higher maximal resulting acceleration, refusing to yield to other road users) in ODIT scenarios. The findings will contribute to addressing the safety concerns related to driving anger among professional taxi drivers and promote the widespread acceptance and integration of partially automated systems within the taxi industry.

Home-Use Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Treatment of a Major Depressive Episode: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is moderately effective for depression when applied by trained staff. It is not known whether self-applied tDCS, combined or not with a digital psychological intervention, is also effective.

Objective

To determine whether fully unsupervised home-use tDCS, combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo, is effective for a major depressive episode.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a double-blinded, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial with 3 arms: (1) home-use tDCS plus a digital psychological intervention (double active); (2) home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (tDCS only), and (3) sham home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (double sham). The study was conducted between April 2021 and October 2022 at participants' homes and at Instituto de Psiquiatria do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Included participants were aged 18 to 59 years with major depression and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HDRS-17), score above 16, a minimum of 8 years of education, and access to a smartphone and internet at home. Exclusion criteria were other psychiatric disorders, except for anxiety; neurologic or clinical disorders; and tDCS contraindications.

Interventions

tDCS was administered in 2-mA, 30-minute prefrontal sessions for 15 consecutive weekdays (1-mA, 90-second duration for sham) and twice-weekly sessions for 3 weeks. The digital intervention consisted of 46 sessions based on behavioral therapy. Digital placebo was internet browsing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in HDRS-17 score at week 6.

Results

Of 837 volunteers screened, 210 participants were enrolled (180 [86%] female; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [9.3] years) and allocated to double active (n = 64), tDCS only (n = 73), or double sham (n = 73). Of the 210 participants enrolled, 199 finished the trial. Linear mixed-effects models did not reveal statistically significant group differences in treatment by time interactions for HDRS-17 scores, and the estimated effect sizes between groups were as follows: double active vs tDCS only (Cohen d, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.48 to 0.58; P = .86), double active vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.73 to 0.34; P = .47), and tDCS only vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.25; 95% CI, -0.76 to 0.27; P = .35). Skin redness and heat or burning sensations were more frequent in the double active and tDCS only groups. One nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in the tDCS only group.

Conclusions and Relevance

Unsupervised home-use tDCS combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo was not found to be superior to sham for treatment of a major depressive episode in this trial.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04889976.

Effectiveness of rTMS and tDCS treatment for chronic TBI symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of long-term disability with conventional treatments frequently falling short to restore a good quality-of-life. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have shown potential as therapeutic options for neuropsychiatric conditions, including TBI sequelae. This study aims at providing a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on post-TBI symptoms.

METHODS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adult TBI patients that examined the effects of multiple treatment sessions of NIBS techniques were selected from five databases. Symptoms were clustered into four categories: depression, anxiety, headache and cognitive dysfunctions. Meta-analysis was performed using correlated and hierarchical effects models.

RESULTS

There were only few and heterogeneous studies with generally small sample sizes. Most studies targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Overall, the effects of NIBS were small. However, there was a significant effect for overall symptoms (0.404, p = 0.031). Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed significant overall effects for anxiety (0.195, p = 0.020) and headache (0.354, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of NIBS concerning treatment for TBI sequelae. The observed effect sizes were modest, suggesting subtle improvements rather than drastic changes. While NIBS techniques remain promising for treating neuropsychiatric conditions, larger RCT studies with longer follow-ups, optimized stimulation parameters and standardized methodology are required to establish their efficacy in addressing TBI sequelae.

Active versus sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunct to varenicline treatment for smoking cessation: Study protocol for a double-blind single dummy randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a chronic and relapsing disease, with up to 60% of quitters relapsing within the first year. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), targets cortical circuits and acutely reduces craving and withdrawal symptoms among cigarette smokers. However, the efficacy of tDCS as an adjunct to standard smoking cessation treatments has not been studied. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of tDCS in combination with varenicline for smoking cessation. We hypothesize that active tDCS combined with varenicline will improve cessation outcomes compared to sham tDCS combined with varenicline.

METHODS

This is a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial where fifty healthy smokers will be recruited in Toronto, Canada. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to either active tDCS (20 minutes at 2 mA) or sham tDCS (30 seconds at 2 mA, 19 minutes at 0 mA) for 10 daily sessions (2 weeks) plus 5 follow up sessions, occurring every two weeks for 10 weeks. All participants will be given standard varenicline treatment concurrently for the 12-week treatment period. The primary outcome is 30 day continuous abstinence at end of treatment, confirmed with urinary cotinine. Measurements made at each study visit include expired carbon monoxide, self-reported craving and withdrawal. Three magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans will be conducted: two at baseline and one at end of treatment, to assess any functional or structural changes following treatment.

DISCUSSION

For every two smokers who quit, one life is saved from a tobacco-related mortality. Therefore, it is important to develop new and more effective treatment approaches that can improve and maintain long-term abstinence, in order to decrease the prevalence of tobacco-related deaths and disease. Furthermore, the addition of longitudinal neuroimaging can shed light on neural circuitry changes that might occur as a result of brain stimulation, furthering our understanding of tDCS in addiction treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03841292 since February 15th 2019 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03841292)-retrospectively registered.

Using Remotely Supervised At-Home TES for Enhancing Mental Resilience

We are in the midst of a mental health crisis with major depressive disorder being the most prevalent among mental health disorders and up to 30% of patients not responding to first-line treatments. Noninvasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) techniques have proven to be effective in treating depression. However, there is a fundamental problem of scale. Currently, any type of NIBS treatment requires patients to repeatedly visit a clinic to receive brain stimulation by trained personnel. This is an often-insurmountable barrier to both patients and healthcare providers in terms of time and cost. In this perspective, we assess to what extent Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TES) might be administered with remote supervision in order to address this scaling problem and enable neuroenhancement of mental resilience at home. Social, ethical, and technical challenges relating to hardware- and software-based solutions are discussed alongside the risks of stimulation under- or over-use. Solutions to provide users with a safe and transparent ongoing assessment of aptitude, tolerability, compliance, and/or misuse are proposed, including standardized training, eligibility screening, as well as compliance and side effects monitoring. Looking into the future, such neuroenhancement could be linked to prevention systems which combine home-use TES with digital sensor and mental monitoring technology to index decline in mental wellbeing and avoid relapse. Despite the described social, ethical legal, and technical challenges, the combination of remotely supervised, at-home TES setups with dedicated artificial intelligence systems could be a powerful weapon to combat the mental health crisis by bringing personalized medicine into people’s homes.

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.

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.

Interactions between transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and pharmacological interventions in the Major Depressive Episode: Findings from a naturalistic study

Background:

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, neuromodulatory technique with an emerging role for treating major depression.

Objective:

To investigate the interactions between tDCS and drug therapy in unipolar and bipolar depressed patients who were refractory for at least one pharmacological treatment.

Methods:

This was a naturalistic study using data from 54 female and 28 male patients (mean age of 54 years) that consecutively visited our psychiatric unit. They received active tDCS (five consecutive days, 2 mA, anodal stimulation over the left and cathodal over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, twice a day, 20 minutes). The outcome variable (mood) was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Predictor variables were age, gender, disorder and pharmacological treatment (seven dummy variables). We performed univariate and multivariate analyses as to identify predictors associated to the outcome.

Results:

After 5 days of treatment, BDI and HDRS scores decreased significantly (29% ± 36%, 18% ± 9%, respectively, P < 0.01 for both). Benzodiazepine use was independently associated with a worse outcome in both univariate (β = 4.92, P < 0.01) and multivariate (β = 5.8, P < 0.01) analyses; whereas use of dual-reuptake inhibitors positively changed tDCS effects in the multivariate model (β = –4.7, P = 0.02). A similar trend was observed for tricyclics (β = –4, P = 0.06) but not for antipsychotics, non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants and other drugs.

Conclusion:

tDCS over the DLPFC acutely improved depressive symptoms. Besides the inherent limitations of our naturalistic design, our results suggest that tDCS effects might vary according to prior pharmacological treatment, notably benzodiazepines and some antidepressant classes. This issue should be further explored in controlled studies.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

Combined neuromodulatory interventions in acute experimental pain: assessment of melatonin and non-invasive brain stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and melatonin can effectively treat pain. Given their potentially complementary mechanisms of action, their combination could have a synergistic effect. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that compared to the control condition and melatonin alone, tDCS combined with melatonin would have a greater effect on pain modulatory effect, as assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) and by the pain level during the Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM)-task. Furthermore, the combined treatment would have a greater cortical excitability effect as indicated by the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and on the serum BDNF level. Healthy males (n = 20), (aged 18-40 years), in a blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, were randomized into three groups: sublingual melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + a-tDCS, melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + sham-(s)-tDCS, or sublingual placebo+sham-(s)-tDCS. Anodal stimulation (2 mA, 20 min) was applied over the primary motor cortex. There was a significant difference in the heat pain threshold (°C) for melatonin+a-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean difference: 4.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 8.63) and melatonin+s-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean: 5.16, 95% CI: 0.84 to 8.36). There was no difference between melatonin+s-tDCS and melatonin+a-tDCS (mean difference: 0.29, 95% CI: -3.72 to 4.23). The mean change from the baseline on amplitude of motor evocate potential (MEP) was significantly higher in the melatonin+a-tDCS (-19.96% ± 5.2) compared with melatonin+s-tDCS group (-1.36% ± 5.35) and with placebo+s-tDCS group (3.61% ± 10.48), respectively (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). While melatonin alone or combined with a-tDCS did not significantly affect CPM task result, and serum BDNF level. The melatonin effectively reduced pain; however, its association with a-tDCS did not present an additional modulatory effect on acute induced pain.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a summary of preclinical, clinical and translational findings

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric illness, with 6-12% lifetime prevalence. It is also among the five most disabling diseases worldwide. Current pharmacological treatments, although relatively effective, present important side effects that lead to treatment discontinuation. Therefore, novel treatment options for MDD are needed. Here, we discuss the recent advancements of one new neuromodulatory technique--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)--that has undergone intensive research over the past decade with promising results. tDCS is based on the application of weak, direct electric current over the scalp, leading to cortical hypo- or hyper-polarization according to the specified parameters. Recent studies have shown that tDCS is able to induce potent changes in cortical excitability as well as to elicit long-lasting changes in brain activity. Moreover, tDCS is a technique with a low rate of reported side effects, relatively easy to apply and less expensive than other neuromodulatory techniques--appealing characteristics for clinical use. In the past years, 4 of 6 phase II clinical trials and one recent meta-analysis have shown positive results in ameliorating depression symptoms. tDCS has some interesting, unique aspects such as noninvasiveness and low rate of adverse effects, being a putative substitutive/augmentative agent for antidepressant drugs, and low-cost and portability, making it suitable for use in clinical practice. Still, further phase II and phase III trials are needed as to better clarify tDCS role in the therapeutic arsenal of MDD.

Translational research in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): a systematic review of studies in animals

Recent therapeutic human studies testing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promising results, although many questions remain unanswered. Translational research with experimental animals is an appropriate framework for investigating its mechanisms of action that are still undetermined. Nevertheless, animal and human studies are often discordant. Our aim was to review tDCS animal studies, examining and comparing their main findings with human studies. We performed a systematic review in Medline and other databases, screening for animal studies in vivo that delivered tDCS. Studies in vitro and using other neuromodulatory techniques were excluded. We extracted data according to Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for reporting in vivo animal research. Thus, we collected data on sample characteristics (size, gender, weight and specimen) and methodology (experimental procedures, experimental animals, housing and husbandry, as well as analysis). We also collected data on methods for delivering tDCS (location, size, current and current density of electrodes and electrode montage), experimental effects (polarity-, intensity- and after-effects) and safety. Only 12 of 48 potentially eligible studies met our inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Quality assessment reporting was only moderate and studies were heterogeneous regarding tDCS montage methodology, position of active and reference electrodes, and current density used. Nonetheless, almost all studies demonstrated that tDCS had positive immediate and long-lasting effects. Vis-à-vis human trials, animal studies applied higher current densities (34.2 vs. 0.4 A/m(2), respectively), preferred extra-cephalic positions for reference electrodes (60% vs. 10%, respectively) and used electrodes with different sizes more often. Potential implications for translational tDCS research are discussed.