Evidence-based umbrella review of non-invasive brain stimulation in anxiety disorders

Background and objectives Although several meta-analyses have suggested the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) mainly in prefrontal brain areas to treat mental disorders, no synthetic approach has been performed for other psychiatric disorders rather than depression. The objective is to assess the available evidence of NIBS in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Methods An umbrella review (CRD42021239577) was performed only looking for reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials using a source strategy MeSH keywords in MEDLINE through Pubmed by two independent researchers. The effects of different methods of NIBS in anxiety disorders were assessed using the PICO strategy. The methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and certainty of evidence using the GRADE-pro framework. Results From 136 screening meta-analyses, 16 from 14 studies were included in the final analysis. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) respond best to low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), while Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has the largest effect size at high frequency rTMS. Panic Disorder (PD) has no evidence for clinical use of NIBS. There were not identified meta-analyses about other anxiety disorders. In general, the included studies had good methodological quality, but low to moderate evidence for clinical recommendation. Conclusion Available evidence reveals NIBS as an effective and safe approach to treat GAD, PTSD and OCD with low recommendation level to clinical application. A great heterogeneity of studies indicates the necessity to develop new randomized clinical trials applying NIBS to treat those and other mental disorders. (AU)

Human T Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type 1 Global Prevalence Associated with the Human Development Index: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

In 2012, the number of people infected with human T cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) was estimated to be 10 million worldwide. Prevalence varies according to geographic location, ethnic factors, sex, age, populations exposed to risk factors, income, and education, reaching countries with the worst socioeconomic scenarios. There is a need to determine the current global prevalence of HTLV-1 and examine its association with countries' human development index (HDI) to provide data for global health policy. Systematic review with meta-analysis is according to PRISMA 2020 recommendations. It was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42021223146. Prevalence or cross-sectional studies of HTLV-1 infection with at least 100 participants, screening, and confirmatory serologic testing were included. Studies with incomplete or unavailable results or with duplicate information were excluded. Data were selected by two independent investigators and analyzed using R software, a metapackage that generated the forest plots [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and funnel plot asymmetry was assessed using Egger's test. Countries were compared using an HDI cutoff ≥0.8. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria. The overall prevalence of HTLV-1 infection was 0.91% (95% CI: 0.80-1.02, p < .0001) and was higher in low HDI countries [1.18% (95% CI: 1.03-1.34)] than in high HDI countries [0.41% (95% CI: 0.27-0.57)]. Prevalence varied according to the populations studied: it was higher in the general population [1.65% (95% CI: 1.08-2.34)] compared to pregnant women [0.34% (95% CI: 0.17-0.57)] and blood donors [0.04% (95% CI: 0.01-0.08)]. Consistently, prevalence for each population group was higher in low HDI countries than in high HDI countries. The worldwide prevalence of HTLV-1 infection is highly heterogeneous, with a global prevalence of 0.91%. In high HDI countries, the observed prevalence is approximately three times lower than in low HDI countries. In the general population, the observed prevalence is about 5 times higher than in pregnant women and 41 times higher than in blood donors.

Indirect Economic Impact of Chronic Pain on Education Workers: A Company Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate indirect cost (IC) related to chronic pain (CP) from an employer's perspective. METHODS: A cost-of-illness study was performed on active workers and retirees due to CP, between October 2017 and March 2018, in one of the Brazilian public universities. IC was measured as a sum of absenteeism, presenteeism, and disability pensions. The analysis of factors associated with IC was based on Tweedie model. RESULTS: CP had an average IC of R$9258.20 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 6907.37 to 11,950.17], which generates an impact of 6.42 million (95% CI = 4.37 to 10.99) per year, corresponding to 3.42% (95% CI = 2.33 to 5.85) of the payroll. The position (Measure of 2.00, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.38) and pain intensity (Measure of 1.15; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.30) presented independent association. CONCLUSION: CP generates the high levels of IC for the education's employer. There is an urgent need to implement prevention programs aimed at improving CP control in the workplace.

Additive effect of tDCS combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation to an exercise program in pain control in knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been linked to maladaptive plasticity in the brain, which may contribute to chronic pain. Neuromodulatory approaches, such as Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Peripheral Electrical Stimulation (PES), have been used therapeutically to counteract brain maladaptive plasticity. However, it is currently unclear whether these neuromodulatory techniques enhance the benefits of exercise when administered together. Therefore, this protocol aims to investigate whether the addition of tDCS combined or not with PES enhances the effects of a land-based strengthening exercise program in patients with knee OA. METHODS: Patients with knee OA (n = 80) will undertake a structured exercise program for five consecutive days. In addition, they will be randomized into four subgroups receiving either active anodal tDCS and sham PES (group 1; n = 20), sham tDCS and active PES (group 2, n = 20), sham tDCS and PES (group 3, n = 20), or active tDCS and PES (group 4, n = 20) for 20 min/day for five consecutive days just prior to commencement of the exercise program. The primary outcomes will be subjective pain intensity (VAS) and related function (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes will include quality of life (SF-36), anxiety and depression symptoms (HAD), self-perception of improvement, pressure pain thresholds over the knee, quadriceps strength, and quadriceps electromyographic activity during maximum knee extension voluntary contraction. We will also investigate cortical excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 1 month after, before any intervention, after 5 days of intervention, and at 1 month post exercise intervention. DISCUSSION: The motor cortex becomes less responsive in knee OA because of poorly adapted plastic changes, which can impede exercise therapy benefits. Adding tDCS and/or PES may help to counteract those maladaptive plastic changes and improve the benefits of exercises, and the combination of both neuromodulatory techniques must have a higher magnitude of effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry on Clinical Trials (ReBEC) - Effects of electrical stimulation over the skull and tight together with exercises for knee OA; protocol number RBR-9D7C7B. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID: RBR-9D7C7B . Registered on 29 February 2016.