Trajectories of common mental disorders symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the ELSA-Brasil COVID-19 Mental Health Cohort.

AIM: Evidence indicates most people were resilient to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. However, evidence also suggests the pandemic effect on mental health may be heterogeneous. Therefore, we aimed to identify groups of trajectories of common mental disorders' (CMD) symptoms assessed before (2017-19) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and to investigate predictors of trajectories. METHODS: We assessed 2,705 participants of the ELSA-Brasil COVID-19 Mental Health Cohort study who reported Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R) data in 2017-19 and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) data in May-July 2020, July-September 2020, October-December 2020, and April-June 2021. We used an equi-percentile approach to link the CIS-R total score in 2017-19 with the DASS-21 total score. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to identify CMD trajectories and adjusted multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate predictors of trajectories. RESULTS: Six groups of CMD symptoms trajectories were identified: low symptoms (17.6%), low-decreasing symptoms (13.7%), low-increasing symptoms (23.9%), moderate-decreasing symptoms (16.8%), low-increasing symptoms (23.3%), severe-decreasing symptoms (4.7%). The severe-decreasing trajectory was characterized by age < 60 years, female sex, low family income, sedentary behavior, previous mental disorders, and the experience of adverse events in life. LIMITATIONS: Pre-pandemic characteristics were associated with lack of response to assessments. Our occupational cohort sample is not representative. CONCLUSION: More than half of the sample presented low levels of CMD symptoms. Predictors of trajectories could be used to detect individuals at-risk for presenting CMD symptoms in the context of global adverse events.

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 .).

Incidence of Suicidal Ideation in a Civil Servants Cohort During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil: Insights from the ELSA-Brasil Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the incidence of suicidal ideation and its associated risk factors in the São Paulo state of ELSA-Brasil cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: During a pre-pandemic ELSA-Brasil onsite assessment in 2016-2018 (wave 3) and a pandemic online assessment in May-July 2020 (wave COVID), we assessed suicidal ideation using the Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R). Single and multi predictor logistic regressions were performed using sociodemographic characteristics, household finance impact during pandemic, presence of previous chronic diseases, alcohol abuse, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), living alone, and previous CMD as predictors. Suicidal ideation incidence was used as outcome. RESULTS: Out of 4191 participants of wave 3, 2117 (50.5%) answered wave COVID. There was a threefold increase in suicide ideation, from 34 (1.8%) to 104 (5.6%).In multiple predictor models, we found that previous CMD (OR 7.17; 95% CI 4.43 - 11.58) and ACE (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.09 - 2.72) increased the odds of incident suicidal ideation. The sociodemographic predictors female sex, younger age and low income were significant risk factors only in the single predictor model. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and supporting individuals who suffered ACE and have a history of mental health disorders. This is especially critical in times of heightened societal stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and supporting individuals who suffered ACE and have a history of mental health disorders. This is especially critical in times of heightened societal stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on placebo response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression trials.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies indicate that placebo response is large to antidepressant pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder (MDD), no updated meta-analysis has quantified the magnitude of the placebo (sham) response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in MDD yet. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on this issue in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with MDD; and to explore potential moderators. METHODOLOGY: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception up to March 15, 2017 for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of any rTMS modality compared to sham intervention in participants with acute depressive episodes. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to estimate risks. We estimated the placebo effect size (Hedges's g, random-effects model) response using placebo groups baseline and endpoint depressive symptom scores. Meta-regressions have been employed to explore potential moderators of response. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met eligibility criteria (N=1328; mean age, 47years; 57% females). Placebo response was large (g=0.8, 95% CI=0.65-0.95, p<0.01) regardless of the modality of intervention. Placebo response was directly associated with publication year and depression improvement of the active group, and inversely associated with higher levels of treatment-resistant depression. Other moderators, including gender, age, and stimulator type, were not associated with the outcome. Overall, 24.6%, 67.2%, and 8.2% of studies had an overall low, unclear, and high bias risk, respectively. CONCLUSION: Placebo response in rTMS depression trials was large and associated with depression improvement of the active treatment group. Such result suggests that excluding placebo responders with a run-in phase may not confer advantage since response to 'active' rTMS may decrease as well. Moreover, placebo response may be a component of therapeutic response to rTMS in MDD. In addition, placebo response increase over time could indicate improvement in rTMS trial designs, including better sham rTMS methods.

Cognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation treatment in patients with major depressive disorder: An individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised, sham-controlled trials.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a promising new treatment for major depression. While recent randomised, sham-controlled studies found tDCS to have antidepressant effects, it remains to be determined whether a tDCS treatment course may also enhance cognitive function independent of mood effects in depressed patients. This systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis examined cognitive outcomes from randomised, sham-controlled trials of tDCS treatment for major depression. Seven randomised, sham-controlled trials (n = 478 participants, 260 in active and 218 in sham) of tDCS for major depression were included. Results showed no cognitive enhancement after active tDCS compared to sham for the 12 cognitive outcomes investigated. Active relative to sham tDCS treatment was associated with reduced performance gains on a measure of processing speed (ß = -0.33, 95% CI -0.58; -0.08, p = 0.011). Active tDCS treatment for depression did not show cognitive benefits independent of mood effects. Rather, tDCS treatment relative to sham stimulation for major depression may instead be associated with a reduced practice effect for processing speed.

Effects of acute transcranial direct current stimulation in hot and cold working memory tasks in healthy and depressed subjects.

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) hypoactivity and subcortical hyperactivity have been associated to cognitive impairment for non-emotional ("cold") and emotional ("hot") working memory tasks in major depressive disorder (MDD). We investigated whether an increase of DLPFC activity using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would differently influence the performance in working memory tasks in depressed and healthy subjects. Forty young adult participants (20 with MDD and 20 healthy controls) were randomized to a single, sham-controlled, bifrontal (left anodal/right cathodal), 2mA, 30min tDCS session in a parallel design. The n-back and the internal shift task (IST) were used as proxies of cold and hot working memory performance, respectively. Active tDCS compared to sham promoted more accurate and faster responses to the n-back task for both patients and controls. Conversely, only patients presented an improvement in response times for the IST task. Our findings suggest that the mechanisms of tDCS in MDD involve modulation of both cold and hot working memory. We discuss these findings considering the modulatory top-down effects of tDCS on subcortical structures via prefrontal activation, and how spreading of activation might be different for healthy volunteers versus depressed patients. We also discuss the role of tDCS in cognitive amelioration for depressed patients. Finally, the distinct effects of tDCS in the "hot" cognition task for healthy and depressed participants are indicative that tDCS outcomes are also regulated by differences in baseline activity of the stimulated network.

Does non-invasive brain stimulation improve cognition in major depressive disorder? A systematic review.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have been increasingly used in different contexts to improve cognitive performance and ameliorate depression symptoms. Considering that major depression is usually accompanied by cognitive deficits, NIBS technique could be also helpful to improve cognition in depressed patients. In this systematic review, we researched for articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE from the first date available to June 2014 that assessed cognitive performance in patients with depression before and after NIBS. Out of 191 references, 25 (16 for rTMS and 9 for tDCS) studies matched our eligibility criteria. Non-invasive brain stimulation interventions, such as rTMS and tDCS seem to be a promising tool for cognitive enhancement in MDD, although several issues and biases (e.g., blinding issues, tests without correction for multiple comparisons, placebo effects and exploratory analyses, practice effects) hinder us to conclude that NIBS technique improve cognition in patients with depression. We discussed possible shortcomings of the included studies, such as the use of different depression treatment protocols, the possibility that some findings were false-positive results of the employed cognitive tasks and whether cognition improvement could have been an epiphenomenon secondary to depression improvement. To conclude, whereas these non-pharmacological, non-invasive techniques are particularly appealing for cognitive improvement in depression, further studies are still warranted to disentangle whether NIBS technique induce positive effects on cognition beyond their antidepressant effects.