Feasibility, acceptability and practicality of transcranial stimulation in obsessive compulsive symptoms (FEATSOCS): A randomised controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive form of neurostimulation with potential for development as a self-administered intervention. It has shown promise as a safe and effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in a small number of studies. The two most favourable stimulation targets appear to be the left orbitofrontal cortex (L-OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). We report the first study to test these targets head-to-head within a randomised sham-controlled trial. Our aim was to inform the design of future clinical research studies, by focussing on the acceptability and safety of the intervention, feasibility of recruitment, adherence to and tolerability of tDCS, and the size of any treatment-effect. METHODS: FEATSOCS was a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over, multicentre study. Twenty adults with DSM-5-defined OCD were randomised to treatment, comprising three courses of clinic-based tDCS (SMA, L-OFC, Sham), randomly allocated and delivered in counterbalanced order. Each course comprised four 20-min 2 mA stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by a 'washout' period of at least four weeks. Assessments were carried out by raters who were blind to stimulation-type. Clinical outcomes were assessed before, during, and up to four weeks after stimulation. Patient representatives with lived experience of OCD were actively involved at all stages. RESULTS: Clinicians showed willingness to recruit participants and recruitment to target was achieved. Adherence to treatment and study interventions was generally good, with only two dropouts. There were no serious adverse events, and adverse effects which did occur were transient and mostly mild in intensity. Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were numerically improved from baseline to 24 h after the final stimulation across all intervention groups but tended to worsen thereafter. The greatest effect size was seen in the L-OFC arm, (Cohen's d = -0.5 [95% CI -1.2 to 0.2] versus Sham), suggesting this stimulation site should be pursued in further studies. Additional significant sham referenced improvements in secondary outcomes occurred in the L-OFC arm, and to a lesser extent with SMA stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: tDCS was acceptable, practicable to apply, well-tolerated and appears a promising potential treatment for OCD. The L-OFC represents the most promising target based on clinical changes, though the effects on OCD symptoms were not statistically significant compared to sham. SMA stimulation showed lesser signs of promise. Further investigation of tDCS in OCD is warranted, to determine the optimal stimulation protocol (current, frequency, duration), longer-term effectiveness and brain-based mechanisms of effect. If efficacy is substantiated, consideration of home-based approaches represents a rational next step. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17937049. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17937049.

Evaluation of the move to remote delivery of drug and alcohol services during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study protocol.

Background: Substance misuse is a significant global health concern. In the UK, the prevalence of substance misuse has increased over the past decade and the number of alcohol and drug related deaths are increasing. Individuals with substance dependency issues are entitled to access treatment services. However, the COVID-19 pandemic created significant challenges for public services, including drug and alcohol treatment, and resulted in significant service reconfiguration and a shift from in-person to remote delivery. This study aims to evaluate the delivery of drug and alcohol services in a large metropolitan area in Northern England during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to understand the impact of service reconfiguration for services, staff and service users, and to use this understanding to inform the future optimised design of services. Design and methods: The study has five workstreams within a mixed methods framework: (1) Systematic review of literature; (2) Qualitative process evaluation with service providers (digital timelines, focus groups and interviews); (3) Qualitative process evaluation with service users (interviews, focus groups, text based conversations and case studies); (4) Quantitative outcomes and health economic analysis; and (5) Data synthesis and dissemination. Expected Impact of the study for Public Health: The breadth of the study, its novel nature, and the importance of substance misuse as a public health issue, mean that this study will provide valuable findings for those who commission, deliver and use drug and alcohol treatment services nationally and internationally. There will also be important learning for the effective remote delivery of services in sectors beyond drug and alcohol treatment.

Investigating Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD): a double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over randomised trial

Aims Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition, new treatment options are needed to improve health outcomes. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, a non-invasive form of neurostimulation, has shown positive results in a small number of studies as a safe and potentially efficacious treatment for OCD. There nevertheless remains uncertainty about the optimal stimulation protocol, magnitude and duration of effect, acceptability, tolerability and practicality of applying tDCS clinical settings. As existing data are inadequate to support a full-scale trial, we will deliver a feasibility study to address key research questions and knowledge gaps to enable the design and the development of the most efficient, cost effective, definitive trial. Method We designed Feasibility And Acceptability Of Transcranial Stimulation In Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms (FEATSOCS), a double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over randomised multicentre study in 25 adults with OCD. We will stimulate the two most promising cortical sites, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). Each participant will receive three courses of tDCS (SMA, OFC and sham), randomly allocated, given in counterbalanced order. Each course comprises four 20 minutes-stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by at least four weeks’ washout period. Blinded raters will regularly assess clinical outcomes before, during and up to four weeks after stimulation using validated scales. We will include relevant neurocognitive tasks, testing cognitive flexibility, motor disinhibition, cooperation and habit learning. Result FEATSOCS trial is currently underway and recruiting. Owing to the impact of COVID-19, a recruitment extension has been granted. At the study end, we will analyse the feasibility outcomes, magnitude of the effect of the interventions on OCD symptoms alongside the standard deviation of the outcome measure to estimate effect size, and determine the optimal stimulation target. We will also measure the duration of the effect of stimulation, to provide information on spacing treatments efficiently. We will evaluate the usefulness and limitations of specific neurocognitive tests to determine a definitive test battery. Qualitative data will be collected from participants to better understand their experience of taking part in a tDCS intervention, the impact on their overall quality of life and their views on the potential of tDCS as home based-intervention. Conclusion Further evidence is needed to establish whether tDCS could join the treatment armamentarium of OCD. The clinical outcomes in FEATSOCS will enable to further refine the methodology to ensure optimal efficiency in terms of both delivering and assessing the tDCS in OCD in a full scale trial. The funder for this study is the National Institute for Health Research Programme, Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) [Ref. no PB-PG-1216-20005]. Extra funding to allow study extension was provided by Orchard OCD. This study has received full ethics committee approval and protocol amendments approval form the Cambridge and Hertfordshire NHS Research Ethics Committee, IRAS Project ID 254507, REC ref: 19/EE/0046.

Facing the "new normal": How adjusting to the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions exposes mental health inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Re-establishing societal norms in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic will be important for restoring public mental health and psychosocial wellbeing as well as economic recovery. We investigated the impact on post-pandemic adjustment of a history of mental disorder, with particular reference to obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms or traits. METHODS: The study was pre-registered (Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/gs8j2/). Adult members of the public (n = 514) were surveyed between July and November 2020, to identify the extent to which they reported difficulties re-adjusting as lockdown conditions eased. All were assessed using validated scales to determine which demographic and mental health-related factors impacted adjustment. An exploratory analysis of a subgroup on an objective online test of cognitive inflexibility was also performed. RESULTS: Adjustment was related to a history of mental disorder and the presence of OC symptoms and traits, all acting indirectly and statistically-mediated via depression, anxiety and stress; and in the case of OC symptoms, also via COVID-related anxiety (all p < 0.001). One hundred and twenty-eight (25%) participants reported significant adjustment difficulties and were compared with those self-identifying as "good adjusters" (n = 231). This comparison revealed over-representation of those with a history or family history of mental disorder in the poor adjustment category (all p < 0.05). 'Poor-adjusters' additionally reported higher COVID-related anxiety, depression, anxiety and stress and OC symptoms and traits (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, history of mental disorder directly statistically mediated adjustment status (p < 0.01), whereas OC symptoms (not OC traits) acted indirectly via COVID-related anxiety (p < 0.001). Poor-adjusters also showed evidence of greater cognitive inflexibility on the intra-extra-dimensional set-shift task. CONCLUSION: Individuals with a history of mental disorder, OC symptoms and OC traits experienced greater difficulties adjusting after lockdown-release, largely statistically mediated by increased depression, anxiety, including COVID-related anxiety, and stress. The implications for clinical and public health policies and interventions are discussed.