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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for preventing major depressive disorder relapse: Results of a 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a continuation therapy for the maintenance phase of the depressive episode is low and insufficiently investigated in literature. We investigated whether it could be enhanced by using a more intensive treatment regimen compared to previous reports. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (16 with unipolar depression and eight with bipolar depression) who presented acute tDCS response (≥50% depression improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS]) after receiving 15 tDCS sessions were followed for up to 6 months or until relapse, defined as clinical worsening and/or HDRS > 15. Sessions were performed twice a week (maximum of 48 sessions) over 24 weeks. The anode and the cathode were positioned over the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA current, 30 min sessions were delivered). We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards ratios to evaluate predictors of relapse. RESULTS: Out of 24 patients, 18 completed the follow-up period. tDCS treatment was well tolerated. The mean survival duration was 17.5 weeks (122 days). The survival rate at the end of follow-up was 73.5% (95% confidence interval, 50-87). A trend (P = 0.09) was observed for lower relapse rates in nontreatment- vs. antidepressant treatment-resistant patients (7.7% vs. 45.5%, respectively). No differences in efficacy between unipolar and bipolar depression were observed. CONCLUSION: An intensive tDCS treatment regimen consisting of sessions twice a week achieved relatively low relapse rates after a 6-month follow up of tDCS responders, particularly for nontreatment-resistant patients.

Trial of Electrical Direct-Current Therapy versus Escitalopram for Depression.

BACKGROUND: We compared transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of depression. METHODS: In a single-center, double-blind, noninferiority trial involving adults with unipolar depression, we randomly assigned patients to receive tDCS plus oral placebo, sham tDCS plus escitalopram, or sham tDCS plus oral placebo. The tDCS was administered in 30-minute, 2-mA prefrontal stimulation sessions for 15 consecutive weekdays, followed by 7 weekly treatments. Escitalopram was given at a dose of 10 mg per day for 3 weeks and 20 mg per day thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score (range, 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating more depression). Noninferiority of tDCS versus escitalopram was defined by a lower boundary of the confidence interval for the difference in the decreased score that was at least 50% of the difference in the scores with placebo versus escitalopram. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients underwent randomization, with 91 being assigned to escitalopram, 94 to tDCS, and 60 to placebo. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (±SD) decrease in the score from baseline was 11.3±6.5 points in the escitalopram group, 9.0±7.1 points in the tDCS group, and 5.8±7.9 points in the placebo group. The lower boundary of the confidence interval for the difference in the decrease for tDCS versus escitalopram (difference, -2.3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.3 to -0.4; P=0.69) was lower than the noninferiority margin of -2.75 (50% of placebo minus escitalopram), so noninferiority could not be claimed. Escitalopram and tDCS were both superior to placebo (difference vs. placebo, 5.5 points [95% CI, 3.1 to 7.8; P<0.001] and 3.2 points [95% CI, 0.7 to 5.5; P=0.01], respectively). Patients receiving tDCS had higher rates of skin redness, tinnitus, and nervousness than did those in the other two groups, and new-onset mania developed in 2 patients in the tDCS group. Patients receiving escitalopram had more frequent sleepiness and obstipation than did those in the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center trial, tDCS for the treatment of depression did not show noninferiority to escitalopram over a 10-week period and was associated with more adverse events. (Funded by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo and others; ELECT-TDCS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01894815 .).

The Influence of Skin Redness on Blinding in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Studies: A Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether and to which extent skin redness (erythema) affects investigator blinding in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six volunteers received sham and active tDCS, which was applied with saline-soaked sponges of different thicknesses. High-resolution skin images, taken before and 5, 15, and 30 min after stimulation, were randomized and presented to experienced raters who evaluated erythema intensity and judged on the likelihood of stimulation condition (sham vs. active). In addition, semi-automated image processing generated probability heatmaps and surface area coverage of erythema. Adverse events were also collected. RESULTS: Erythema was present, but less intense in sham compared to active groups. Erythema intensity was inversely and directly associated to correct sham and active stimulation group allocation, respectively. Our image analyses found that erythema also occurs after sham and its distribution is homogenous below electrodes. Tingling frequency was higher using thin compared to thick sponges, whereas erythema was more intense under thick sponges. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal investigator blinding is achieved when erythema after tDCS is mild. Erythema distribution under the electrode is patchy, occurs after sham tDCS and varies according to sponge thickness. We discuss methods to address skin erythema-related tDCS unblinding.

A Systematic Review on the Acceptability and Tolerability of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment in Neuropsychiatry Trials.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation investigated as a treatment for several neuropsychiatric disorders. Notwithstanding tDCS-induced adverse events (AEs) are considered to be low and transient, systematic review analyses on safety and tolerability of tDCS derive mostly from single-session studies. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the tolerability (rate of AEs) and acceptability (rate of dropouts) of tDCS. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS randomized, sham-controlled trials in healthy or neuropsychiatric adult samples from the first date available to March 9, 2016. We only included parallel studies performing at least 5 tDCS sessions. An adapted version of CONSORT guidelines for reporting harms outcomes was used to evaluate AE reporting. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies (2262 participants) were included. They had a low risk of publication bias and methodological bias for the items assessed. Dropout rates in active and sham tDCS groups were, respectively, 6% and 7.2% (OR = 0.82 [0.59-1.14]). However, almost half of studies reported no dropouts and only 23.4% reported its reasons; when reported, the most frequent reasons were AEs and protocol violation. A tolerability meta-analysis was not performed, as most studies did not report AEs. The quality of AEs reporting was also limited, particularly in smaller studies and stroke studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall dropout rate was low and similar in active and sham groups, studies did not adequately describe AEs. An updated questionnaire and guidelines for assessment of AEs in tDCS trials are proposed in order to standardize the reporting of AE in the field.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in psychiatric disorders.

The interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques is increasing in recent years. Among these techniques, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been the subject of great interest among researchers because of its easiness to use, low cost, benign profile of side effects and encouraging results of research in the field. This interest has generated several studies and randomized clinical trials, particularly in psychiatry. In this review, we provide a summary of the development of the technique and its mechanism of action as well as a review of the methodological aspects of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry, including studies in affective disorders, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, child psychiatry and substance use disorder. Finally, we provide an overview of tDCS use in cognitive enhancement as well as a discussion regarding its clinical use and regulatory and ethical issues. Although many promising results regarding tDCS efficacy were described, the total number of studies is still low, highlighting the need of further studies aiming to replicate these findings in larger samples as to provide a definite picture regarding tDCS efficacy in psychiatry.