Effects and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of randomized clinical trials.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers a direct current to the brain, emerged as a non-invasive potential therapeutic in treating a range of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, a comprehensive quantitative evidence synthesis on the effects of tDCS on a broad range of mental illnesses is lacking. Here, we systematically assess the certainty of the effects and safety of tDCS on several health outcomes using an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The methodological quality of each included original meta-analysis was assessed by the A Measurement Tool for Assessing Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and the certainty of the evidence for each effect was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We followed an a priori protocol (PROSPERO CRD42023458700). We identified 15 meta-analyses of RCTs (AMSTAR 2; high 3, moderate 3, and low 9) that included 282 original articles, covering 22 unique health endpoints across 22 countries and six continents. From meta-analyses of RCTs supported by very low to high certainty of evidence, it was found that tDCS improved symptoms related to post-stroke, including post-stroke depression scale score (equivalent standardized mean difference [eSMD], 1.61 [95% confidence level, 0.72-2.50]; GRADE=moderate), activities of daily living independence (7.04 [3.41-10.67]; GRADE=high), motor recovery of upper and lower extremity (upper extremity: 0.15 [0.06-0.24], GRADE=high; lower extremity: 0.10 [0.03-0.16], GRADE=high), swallowing performance (GRADE=low), and spasticity (GRADE=moderate). In addition, tDCS had treatment effects on symptoms of several neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (0.81 [0.44-1.18]; GRADE=high), pain in fibromyalgia (GRADE=low), disease of consciousness (GRADE=low), insight score (GRADE=moderate) and working memory (0.34 [0.01-0.67]; GRADE=high) in schizophrenia, migraine-related pain (-1.52 [-2.91 to -0.13]; GRADE=high), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (reduction in overall symptom severity: 0.24 [0.04-0.45], GRADE=low; reduction in inattention: 0.56 [0.02-1.11], GRADE=low; reduction in impulsivity: 0.28 [0.04-0.51], GRADE=low), depression (GRADE=low), cerebellar ataxia (GRADE=low), and pain (GRADE=very low). Importantly, tDCS induced an increased number of reported cases of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania (0.88 [0.62-1.13]; GRADE=moderate). We found varied levels of evidence for the effects of tDCS with multiple neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, from very low to high certainty of evidence. tDCS was effective for people with stroke, obsessive-compulsive disorder, fibromyalgia, disease of consciousness, schizophrenia, migraine, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, cerebellar ataxia, and pain. Therefore, these findings suggest the benefit of tDCS for several neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders; however, further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanism and optimize its therapeutic potential.

Sleep, mood disorders, and the ketogenic diet: potential therapeutic targets for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are serious psychiatric conditions that cause a significant reduction in quality of life and shortened life expectancy. Treatments including medications and psychosocial support exist, but many people with these disorders still struggle to participate in society and some are resistant to current therapies. Although the exact pathophysiology of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia remains unclear, increasing evidence supports the role of oxidative stress and redox dysregulation as underlying mechanisms. Oxidative stress is an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species generated by metabolic processes and antioxidant systems that can cause damage to lipids, proteins, and DNA. Sleep is a critical regulator of metabolic homeostasis and oxidative stress. Disruption of sleep and circadian rhythms contribute to the onset and progression of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and these disorders often coexist with sleep disorders. Furthermore, sleep deprivation has been associated with increased oxidative stress and worsening mood symptoms. Dysfunctional brain metabolism can be improved by fatty acid derived ketones as the brain readily uses both ketones and glucose as fuel. Ketones have been helpful in many neurological disorders including epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease. Recent clinical trials using the ketogenic diet suggest positive improvement in symptoms for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as well. The improvement in psychiatric symptoms from the ketogenic diet is thought to be linked, in part, to restoration of mitochondrial function. These findings encourage further randomized controlled clinical trials, as well as biochemical and mechanistic investigation into the role of metabolism and sleep in psychiatric disorders. This narrative review seeks to clarify the intricate relationship between brain metabolism, sleep, and psychiatric disorders. The review will delve into the initial promising effects of the ketogenic diet on mood stability, examining evidence from both human and animal models of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The article concludes with a summary of the current state of affairs and encouragement for future research focused on the role of metabolism and sleep in mood disorders.

Slow gut transit increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease: An integrated study of the bi-national cohort in South Korea and Japan and Alzheimer's disease model mice.

INTRODUCTION: Although the association between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and constipation is controversial, its causality and underlying mechanisms remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential association between slow gut transit and AD using epidemiological data and a murine model. METHODS: We conducted a bi-national cohort study in South Korea (discovery cohort, N=3,130,193) and Japan (validation cohort, N=4,379,285) during the pre-observation period to determine the previous diagnostic history (2009-2010) and the follow-up period (2011-2021). To evaluate the causality, we induced slow gut transit using loperamide in 5xFAD transgenic mice. Changes in amyloid-beta (Aß) and other markers were examined using ELISA, qRT-PCR, RNA-seq, and behavioral tests. RESULTS: Constipation was associated with an increased risk of AD in the discovery cohort (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.01-2.07) and the validation cohort (hazard ratio; 2.82; 95% CI, 2.61-3.05). We found that loperamide induced slower gut transit in 5xFAD mice, increased Aß and microglia levels in the brain, increased transcription of genes related to norepinephrine secretion and immune responses, and decreased the transcription of defense against bacteria in the colonic tissue. CONCLUSION: Impaired gut transit may contribute to AD pathogenesis via the gut-brain axis, thus suggesting a cyclical relationship between intestinal barrier disruption and Aß accumulation in the brain. We propose that gut transit or motility may be a modifiable lifestyle factor in the prevention of AD, and further clinical investigations are warranted.

Excitation of Putative Glutamatergic Neurons in the Rat Parabrachial Nucleus Region Reduces Delta Power during Dexmedetomidine but not Ketamine Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Parabrachial nucleus excitation reduces cortical delta oscillation (0.5 to 4 Hz) power and recovery time associated with anesthetics that enhance γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor action. The effects of parabrachial nucleus excitation on anesthetics with other molecular targets, such as dexmedetomidine and ketamine, remain unknown. The hypothesis was that parabrachial nucleus excitation would cause arousal during dexmedetomidine and ketamine anesthesia. METHODS: Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs were used to excite calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase 2α-positive neurons in the parabrachial nucleus region of adult male rats without anesthesia (nine rats), with dexmedetomidine (low dose: 0.3 µg · kg-1 · min-1 for 45 min, eight rats; high dose: 4.5 µg · kg-1 · min-1 for 10 min, seven rats), or with ketamine (low dose: 2 mg · kg-1 · min-1 for 30 min, seven rats; high dose: 4 mg · kg-1 · min-1 for 15 min, eight rats). For control experiments (same rats and treatments), the Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs were not excited. The electroencephalogram and anesthesia recovery times were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Parabrachial nucleus excitation reduced delta power in the prefrontal electroencephalogram with low-dose dexmedetomidine for the 150-min analyzed period, excepting two brief periods (peak median bootstrapped difference [clozapine-N-oxide - saline] during dexmedetomidine infusion = -6.06 [99% CI = -12.36 to -1.48] dB, P = 0.007). However, parabrachial nucleus excitation was less effective at reducing delta power with high-dose dexmedetomidine and low- and high-dose ketamine (peak median bootstrapped differences during high-dose [dexmedetomidine, ketamine] infusions = [-1.93, -0.87] dB, 99% CI = [-4.16 to -0.56, -1.62 to -0.18] dB, P = [0.006, 0.019]; low-dose ketamine had no statistically significant decreases during the infusion). Recovery time differences with parabrachial nucleus excitation were not statistically significant for dexmedetomidine (median difference for [low, high] dose = [1.63, 11.01] min, 95% CI = [-20.06 to 14.14, -20.84 to 23.67] min, P = [0.945, 0.297]) nor low-dose ketamine (median difference = 12.82 [95% CI: -3.20 to 39.58] min, P = 0.109) but were significantly longer for high-dose ketamine (median difference = 11.38 [95% CI: 1.81 to 24.67] min, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the effectiveness of parabrachial nucleus excitation to change the neurophysiologic and behavioral effects of anesthesia depends on the anesthetic's molecular target.

D-Amphetamine Rapidly Reverses Dexmedetomidine-Induced Unconsciousness in Rats.

D-amphetamine induces emergence from sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in rats. Dexmedetomidine is an α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that is commonly used for procedural sedation, whereas ketamine is an anesthetic that acts primarily by inhibiting NMDA-type glutamate receptors. These drugs have different molecular mechanisms of action from propofol and volatile anesthetics that enhance inhibitory neurotransmission mediated by GABAA receptors. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that d-amphetamine accelerates recovery of consciousness after dexmedetomidine and ketamine. Sixteen rats (Eight males, eight females) were used in a randomized, blinded, crossover experimental design and all drugs were administered intravenously. Six additional rats with pre-implanted electrodes in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) were used to analyze changes in neurophysiology. After dexmedetomidine, d-amphetamine dramatically decreased mean time to emergence compared to saline (saline:112.8 ± 37.2 min; d-amphetamine:1.8 ± 0.6 min, p < 0.0001). This arousal effect was abolished by pre-administration of the D1/D5 dopamine receptor antagonist, SCH-23390. After ketamine, d-amphetamine did not significantly accelerate time to emergence compared to saline (saline:19.7 ± 18.0 min; d-amphetamine:20.3 ± 16.5 min, p = 1.00). Prefrontal cortex local field potential recordings revealed that d-amphetamine broadly decreased spectral power at frequencies <25 Hz and restored an awake-like pattern after dexmedetomidine. However, d-amphetamine did not produce significant spectral changes after ketamine. The duration of unconsciousness was significantly longer in females for both dexmedetomidine and ketamine. In conclusion, d-amphetamine rapidly restores consciousness following dexmedetomidine, but not ketamine. Dexmedetomidine reversal by d-amphetamine is inhibited by SCH-23390, suggesting that the arousal effect is mediated by D1 and/or D5 receptors. These findings suggest that d-amphetamine may be clinically useful as a reversal agent for dexmedetomidine.

The Neural Circuits Underlying General Anesthesia and Sleep.

General anesthesia is characterized by loss of consciousness, amnesia, analgesia, and immobility. Important molecular targets of general anesthetics have been identified, but the neural circuits underlying the discrete end points of general anesthesia remain incompletely understood. General anesthesia and natural sleep share the common feature of reversible unconsciousness, and recent developments in neuroscience have enabled elegant studies that investigate the brain nuclei and neural circuits underlying this important end point. A common approach to measure cortical activity across the brain is electroencephalogram (EEG), which can reflect local neuronal activity as well as connectivity among brain regions. The EEG oscillations observed during general anesthesia depend greatly on the anesthetic agent as well as dosing, and only some resemble those observed during sleep. For example, the EEG oscillations during dexmedetomidine sedation are similar to those of stage 2 nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep, but high doses of propofol and ether anesthetics produce burst suppression, a pattern that is never observed during natural sleep. Sleep is primarily driven by withdrawal of subcortical excitation to the cortex, but anesthetics can directly act at both subcortical and cortical targets. While some anesthetics appear to activate specific sleep-active regions to induce unconsciousness, not all sleep-active regions play a significant role in anesthesia. Anesthetics also inhibit cortical neurons, and it is likely that each class of anesthetic drugs produces a distinct combination of subcortical and cortical effects that lead to unconsciousness. Conversely, arousal circuits that promote wakefulness are involved in anesthetic emergence and activating them can induce emergence and accelerate recovery of consciousness. Modern neuroscience techniques that enable the manipulation of specific neural circuits have led to new insights into the neural circuitry underlying general anesthesia and sleep. In the coming years, we will continue to better understand the mechanisms that generate these distinct states of reversible unconsciousness.

Activation of GABAergic Neurons in the Rostromedial Tegmental Nucleus and Other Brainstem Regions Promotes Sedation and Facilitates Sevoflurane Anesthesia in Mice.

Many general anesthetics potentiate gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptors but their neuroanatomic sites of action are less clear. GABAergic neurons in the rostromedial tegmental nucleus (RMTg) send inhibitory projections to multiple arousal-promoting nuclei, but the role of these neurons in modulating consciousness is unknown. In this study, designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs (DREADDs) were targeted to RMTg GABAergic neurons of Vgat-ires-Cre mice. DREADDs expression was found in the RMTg and other brainstem regions. Activation of these neurons decreased movement and exploratory behavior, impaired motor coordination, induced electroencephalogram (EEG) oscillations resembling nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep without loss of righting and reduced the dose requirement for sevoflurane-induced unconsciousness. These results suggest that GABAergic neurons in the RMTg and other brainstem regions promote sedation and facilitate sevoflurane-induced unconsciousness.

Manipulating Neural Circuits in Anesthesia Research.

The neural circuits underlying the distinct endpoints that define general anesthesia remain incompletely understood. It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that distinct pathways in the brain that mediate arousal and pain are involved in various endpoints of general anesthesia. To critically evaluate this growing body of literature, familiarity with modern tools and techniques used to study neural circuits is essential. This Readers' Toolbox article describes four such techniques: (1) electrical stimulation, (2) local pharmacology, (3) optogenetics, and (4) chemogenetics. Each technique is explained, including the advantages, disadvantages, and other issues that must be considered when interpreting experimental results. Examples are provided of studies that probe mechanisms of anesthesia using each technique. This information will aid researchers and clinicians alike in interpreting the literature and in evaluating the utility of these techniques in their own research programs.