A novel approach for targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for transcranial magnetic stimulation using a cognitive task.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has the potential to be developed as a novel treatment for cognitive dysfunction. However, current methods of targeting rTMS for cognition fail to consider inter-individual functional variability. This study explored the use of a cognitive task to individualise the target site for rTMS administered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC). Twenty-five healthy participants were enrolled in a sham-controlled, crossover study. Participants performed a random letter generation task under the following conditions: no stimulation, sham and active 'online' rTMS applied to F3 (International 10-20 System) and four standardised surrounding sites. Across all sites combined, active 'online' rTMS was associated with significantly reduced performance compared to sham rTMS for unique trigrams (p = 0.012), but not for unique digrams (p > 0.05). Using a novel localisation methodology based on performance outcomes from both measures, a single optimal individualised site was identified for 92% [n = 23] of participants. At the individualised site, performance was significantly poorer compared to a common standard site (F3) and both control conditions (ps < 0.01). The current results suggest that this localisation methodology using a cognitive task could be used to individualise the rTMS target site at the L-DLPFC for modulating and potentially enhancing cognitive functioning.

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.

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 .).

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.

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.

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

Major depressive disorder is a severe, refractory mental disorder. Only one third of patients treated with antidepressants achieve remission after 3 trials, while subject to adverse effects. Therefore, the investigation of alternative treatments is paramount. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the most recent evidence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) intervention for the acute phase of major depressive disorder. A PubMed search was performed including the terms "transcranial direct current stimulation" OR "transcranial direct stimulation" OR "tDCS" AND "major depressive disorder" OR "major depression" OR "depression" AND "trial." The search was conducted from inception until February 2018. Our search yielded initially 165 results, and 14 randomized clinical trials were included according to eligibility criteria. Most studies were pilot studies, with mixed findings. Two large randomized clinical trials recently published also presented primary negative findings. Study protocols usually used anodal left/cathodal right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation, 1 to 2.5 mA, and 5 to 20 tDCS sessions. We discuss the limitations of the included trials, such as sample and tDCS parameters heterogeneity between studies. To conclude, tDCS seems to be safe and devoid of serious adverse effects, although robust efficacy has not been consistently demonstrated in clinical trials assessing an acute treatment course of up to 4 weeks. Further directions are discussed, such as parameter individualization, investigation of biological markers, and home-use tDCS.

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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for acute major depressive episodes: meta-analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-pharmacological intervention for depression. It has mixed results, possibly caused by study heterogeneity. AIMS: To assess tDCS efficacy and to explore individual response predictors. METHOD: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data were gathered from six randomised sham-controlled trials, enrolling 289 patients. Active tDCS was significantly superior to sham for response (34% v. 19% respectively, odds ratio (OR) = 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.32, number needed to treat (NNT) = 7), remission (23.1% v. 12.7% respectively, OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.22-4.64, NNT = 9) and depression improvement (B coefficient 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.57). Mixed-effects models showed that, after adjustment for other predictors and confounders, treatment-resistant depression and higher tDCS 'doses' were, respectively, negatively and positively associated with tDCS efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The effect size of tDCS treatment was comparable with those reported for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and antidepressant drug treatment in primary care. The most important parameters for optimisation in future trials are depression refractoriness and tDCS dose.

Impact of two or less missing treatment sessions on tDCS clinical efficacy: results from a factorial, randomized, controlled trial in major depression.

OBJECTIVES: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory intervention with recent clinical trials showing promising results in major depression treatment. Although tDCS has some appealing characteristics (e.g., low cost, ease of use, and relatively benign profile of adverse effects), one important drawback of the technique is the need to deliver consecutive, repeated sessions for several weekdays. However, no study investigated whether absences during this acute treatment phase impact on tDCS efficacy, and, if so, whether absences should be considered dropouts, therefore increasing attrition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To examine this issue, we used data from a randomized, factorial, sham-controlled tDCS study that recruited 120 depressed patients. In this trial, the acute treatment phase consisted of ten consecutive sessions delivered once daily from Monday to Friday; two nonconsecutive missed visits were allowed, with extra tDCS sessions being performed to complete the original number of sessions. RESULTS: Our main finding was that the procedure of granting one to two absences during the acute treatment phase did not impact on tDCS antidepressant efficacy. Moreover, out of 103 completers, only 41 (39.8%) patients presented no missing visits and 25 (24.3%) presented two absences. These patients did not differ in clinical and demographic characteristics; thus, absences were probably circumstantial (e.g., traffic congestion, personal obligations). CONCLUSIONS: Absences during the acute tDCS treatment phase are common, which support the use of flexible schedules in future tDCS trials as to minimize attrition. Also, further studies should access whether higher number of absences can compromise optimal tDCS efficacy.

Prolonged intermittent theta burst stimulation targeting the left prefrontal cortex and cerebellum does not affect executive functions in healthy individuals.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for alleviating negative symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia commonly targets the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC). However, the therapeutic effectiveness of rTMS at this site remains inconclusive and increasingly, studies are focusing on cerebellar rTMS. Recently, prolonged intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) has emerged as a rapid-acting form of rTMS with promising clinical benefits. This study explored the cognitive and neurophysiological effects of prolonged iTBS administered to the LDLPFC and cerebellum in a healthy cohort. 50 healthy participants took part in a cross-over study and received prolonged (1800 pulses) iTBS targeting the LDLPFC, cerebellar vermis, and sham iTBS. Mixed effects repeated measures models examined cognitive and event-related potentials (ERPs) from 2-back (P300, N200) and Stroop (N200, N450) tasks after stimulation. Exploratory non-parametric cluster-based permutation tests compared ERPs between conditions. There were no significant differences between conditions for behavioural and ERP outcomes on the 2-back and Stroop tasks. Exploratory cluster-based permutation tests of ERPs did not identify any significant differences between conditions. We did not find evidence that a single session of prolonged iTBS administered to either the LDLPFC or cerebellum could cause any cognitive or ERP changes compared to sham in a healthy sample.

Individualised Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targeting of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Enhancing Cognition: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been demonstrated to produce cognitive enhancing effects across different neuropsychiatric disorders; however, so far, these effects have been limited. This trial investigated the efficacy of using a novel individualised approach to target the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) for enhancing cognitive flexibility based on performance on a cognitive task. First, forty healthy participants had their single target site at the L-DLPFC determined based on each individual's performance on a random letter generation task. Participants then received, in a cross-over single-blinded experimental design, a single session of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) to their individualised DLPFC target site, an active control site and sham iTBS. Following each treatment condition, participants completed the Task Switching task and Colour-Word Stroop test. There was no significant main effect of treatment condition on the primary outcome measure of switch reaction times from the Task Switching task [F = 1.16 (2, 21.6), p = 0.33] or for any of the secondary cognitive outcome measures. The current results do not support the use of our novel individualised targeting methodology for enhancing cognitive flexibility in healthy participants. Research into alternative methodological targeting approaches is required to further improve rTMS's cognitive enhancing effects.

Efficacy of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Combined with Psychological Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

(1) Background: Psychological interventions are effective in alleviating neuropsychiatric symptoms, though results can vary between patients. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proven to improve clinical symptoms and cognition. It remains unclear whether rTMS can augment the efficacy of psychological interventions. (2) Methods: We examined the effects of rTMS combined with psychological interventions on clinical, functional, and cognitive outcomes from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthy and clinical populations. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases up to April 2023. (3) Results: Twenty-seven studies were ultimately included. Compared to sham rTMS combined with psychological interventions, active rTMS combined with psychological interventions significantly improved overall clinical symptoms (k = 16, SMD = 0.31, CIs 0.08 to 0.54, p < 0.01). We found that 10 or more sessions of rTMS combined with cognitive behavioural therapy significantly improved clinical outcomes overall (k = 3, SMD = 0.21, CIs 0.05 to 0.36, Z = 2.49, p < 0.01). RTMS combined with cognitive training (CT) significantly improved cognition overall compared to sham rTMS combined with CT (k = 13, SMD = 0.28, CIs 0.15 to 0.42, p < 0.01), with a significant effect on global cognition (k = 11, SMD = 0.45, CIs 0.21 to 0.68, p < 0.01), but not on the other cognitive domains. (4) Conclusion: The current results provide preliminary support for the augmentation effects of active rTMS on clinical and cognitive outcomes across diverse populations. Future clinical trials are required to confirm these augmentation effects for specific psychological interventions in specific clinical populations.

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.

Neuromodulatory effects of theta burst stimulation to the prefrontal cortex.

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a new form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) capable of non-invasively modulating cortical excitability. In recent years TBS has been increasingly used as a neuroscientific investigative tool and therapeutic intervention for psychiatric disorders, in which the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is often the primary target. However, the neuromodulatory effects of TBS on prefrontal regions remain unclear. Here we share EEG and ECG recordings and structural MRI scans, including high-resolution DTI, from twenty-four healthy participants who received intermittent TBS (two sessions), continuous TBS (two sessions), and sham stimulation (one session) applied to the left DLPFC using a single-blinded crossover design. Each session includes eyes-open resting-state EEG and single-pulse TMS-EEG obtained before TBS and 2-, 15-, and 30-minutes post-stimulation. This dataset enables foundational basic science investigations into the neuromodulatory effects of TBS on the DLPFC.

Behavioural and neurophysiological differences in working memory function of depressed patients and healthy controls.

OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with deficits in working memory. Several cognitive subprocesses interact to produce working memory, including attention, encoding, maintenance and manipulation. We sought to clarify the contribution of functional deficits in these subprocesses in MDD by varying cognitive load during a working memory task. METHODS: 41 depressed participants and 41 age and gender-matched healthy controls performed the n-back working memory task at three levels of difficulty (0-, 1-, and 2-back) in a pregistered study. We assessed response times, accuracy, and event-related electroencephalography (EEG), including P2 and P3 amplitudes, and frontal theta power (4-8 Hz). RESULTS: MDD participants had prolonged response times and more positive frontal P3 amplitudes (i.e., Fz) relative to controls, mainly in the most difficult 2-back condition. Working memory accuracy, P2 amplitudes and frontal theta event-related synchronisation did not differ between groups at any level of task difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is associated with generalized psychomotor slowing of working memory processes, and may involve compensatory hyperactivity in frontal and parietal regions. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings provide insights into MDD working memory deficits, indicating that depressed individuals dedicate greater levels of cortical processing and cognitive resources to achieve comparable working memory performance to controls.

An investigation of working memory deficits in depression using the n-back task: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression is associated with cognitive deficits across multiple domains, including working memory. The n-back task, a convenient psychometric tool capable of computerised delivery and concurrent use with neuroimaging, can provide enhanced insight into working memory dysfunction in depression. This meta-analysis sought to investigate the n-back task under varying cognitive load conditions (i.e. different levels of 'n') to clarify the pattern of working memory deficits in depression. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving unipolar depressed participants and matched controls utilising the n-back task. Meta-analyses were performed for accuracy and response times at four levels of cognitive load (0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-back). RESULTS: 31 studies (total 1,666 participants) met inclusion criteria and were included for quantitative analyses. Depressed individuals had significantly reduced accuracy compared to controls for 1-, 2-, and 3-back tasks, but not the attentional 0-back task. Likewise, response latencies were prolonged for all task levels (0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-back). Additional meta-regression analyses indicated that participant age and clinical status (i.e. inpatient/outpatient) may exacerbate working memory deficits associated with depression. LIMITATIONS: Our results indicate high levels of heterogeneity between studies, particularly for response times. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy impairments were worse at higher levels of n, with the largest effect size obtained on the 2-back task, suggesting deficits to higher executive functions. Response times were consistently prolonged at all cognitive loads in agreement with a pattern of generalised psychomotor retardation.

Determinants of sham response in tDCS depression trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) investigating transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) efficacy for depression show significant heterogeneity in outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the magnitude of the sham tDCS response and its potential moderators in the treatment of depression. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review and aggregate meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42020161254). The systematic review was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus (EMBASE) and Cochrane Library databases. Only RCTs enrolling adult subjects with an acute depressive episode with a sham tDCS group were included. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (twenty-five datasets, 501 participants) were included. Sham tDCS response was large (Hedges' g = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.8;1.38). Secondary and subgroup analyses showed that sham protocols employing a ramp-up/ramp-down at the beginning and end of stimulation presented a significantly lower sham response compared to other protocols. Univariate meta-regression analyses found that sham response was associated with higher risk of blinding bias, and with thetreatment effect size of the active tDCS group. Subgroup analyses also showed that placement of the cathode over the lateral right frontal area (F8) presented a significantly lower sham response. Other moderators, including treatment resistance, baseline severity of depressive symptoms, and total charge delivered were not associated with the magnitude of the sham response. CONCLUSION: The sham tDCS response was large. Our findings demonstrate the need for standardization of sham tDCS protocols and bring attention to important considerations that can guide future RCTs employing tDCS for the treatment of MDD.

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.

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 ß = 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.

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.