Andre R. Brunoni

Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and future directions

BACKGROUND Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that delivers low-intensity, direct current to cortical areas facilitating or inhibiting spontaneous neuronal activity. In the past 10 years, tDCS physiologic mechanisms of action have been intensively investigated giving support for the investigation of its applications in clinical neuropsychiatry and rehabilitation. However, new methodologic, ethical, and regulatory issues emerge when translating the findings of preclinical and phase I studies into phase II and III clinical studies. The aim of this comprehensive review is to discuss the key challenges of this process and possible methods to address them. METHODS We convened a workgroup of researchers in the field to review, discuss, and provide updates and key challenges of tDCS use in clinical research. MAIN FINDINGS/DISCUSSION We reviewed several basic and clinical studies in the field and identified potential limitations, taking into account the particularities of the technique. We review and discuss the findings into four topics: (1) mechanisms of action of tDCS, parameters of use and computer-based human brain modeling investigating electric current fields and magnitude induced by tDCS; (2) methodologic aspects related to the clinical research of tDCS as divided according to study phase (ie, preclinical, phase I, phase II, and phase III studies); (3) ethical and regulatory concerns; and (4) future directions regarding novel approaches, novel devices, and future studies involving tDCS. Finally, we propose some alternative methods to facilitate clinical research on tDCS.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on major depression and BDNF levels: implications for the role of neuroplasticity in depression

Several clinical studies on major depressive disorder (MDD) have shown that blood brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) - a factor used to index neuroplasticity - is associated with depression response; however, the results are mixed. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether BDNF levels are correlated with improvement of depression. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, searching Medline, Cochrane Central, SciELO databases and reference lists from retrieved articles for clinical studies comparing mean BDNF blood levels in depressed patients pre- and post-antidepressant treatments or comparing depressed patients with healthy controls. Two reviewers independently searched for eligible studies and extracted outcome data using a structured form previously elaborated. Twenty articles, including 1504 subjects, met our inclusion criteria. The results showed that BDNF levels increased significantly after antidepressant treatment (effect size 0.62, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, random effects model). In addition, there was a significant correlation between changes in BDNF level and depression scores changes (p=0.02). Moreover, the results were robust according to the sensitivity analysis and Beggs funnel plot results did not suggest publication bias. Finally, there was a difference between pre-treatment patients and healthy controls (effect size 0.91, 95% CI 0.70-1.11) and a small but significant difference between treated patients and healthy controls (effect size 0.34, 95% CI 0.02-0.66). Our results show that BDNF levels are associated with clinical changes in depression; supporting the notion that depression improvement is associated with neuroplastic changes.

A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive method of brain stimulation that has been intensively investigated in clinical and cognitive neuroscience. Although the general impression is that tDCS is a safe technique with mild and transient adverse effects (AEs), human data on safety and tolerability are largely provided from single-session studies in healthy volunteers. In addition the frequency of AEs and its relationship with clinical variables is unknown. With the aim of assessing tDCS safety in different conditions and study designs, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS clinical trials. We assessed Medline and other databases and reference lists from retrieved articles, searching for articles from 1998 (first trial with contemporary tDCS parameters) to August 2010. Animal studies, review articles and studies assessing other neuromodulatory techniques were excluded. According to our eligibility criteria, 209 studies (from 172 articles) were identified. One hundred and seventeen studies (56%) mentioned AEs in the report. Of these studies, 74 (63%) reported at least one AE and only eight studies quantified AEs systematically. In the subsample reporting AEs, the most common were, for active vs. sham tDCS group, itching (39.3% vs. 32.9%, p>0.05), tingling (22.2% vs. 18.3%, p>0.05), headache (14.8% vs. 16.2%, p>0.05), burning sensation (8.7% vs. 10%, p>0.05) and discomfort (10.4% vs. 13.4%, p>0.05). Meta-analytical techniques could be applied in only eight studies for itching, but no definite results could be obtained due to between-study heterogeneity and low number of studies. Our results suggested that some AEs such as itching and tingling were more frequent in the tDCS active group, although this was not statistically significant. Although results suggest that tDCS is associated with mild AEs only, we identified a selective reporting bias for reporting, assessing and publishing AEs of tDCS that hinders further conclusions. Based on our findings, we propose a revised adverse effects questionnaire to be applied in tDCS studies in order to improve systematic reporting of tDCS-related AEs.

The Sertraline vs Electrical Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Study Results From a Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) trials for major depressive disorder (MDD) have shown positive but mixed results. OBJECTIVE To assess the combined safety and efficacy of tDCS vs a common pharmacological treatment (sertraline hydrochloride, 50 mg/d). DESIGN Double-blind, controlled trial. Participants were randomized using a 2 × 2 factorial design to sertraline/placebo and active/sham tDCS. SETTING Outpatient, single-center academic setting in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS One hundred twenty antidepressant-free patients with moderate to severe, nonpsychotic, unipolar MDD. INTERVENTIONS Six-week treatment of 2-mA anodal left/cathodal right prefrontal tDCS (twelve 30-minute sessions: 10 consecutive sessions once daily from Monday to Friday plus 2 extra sessions every other week) and sertraline hydrochloride (50 mg/d). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES In this intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome measure was the change in Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale score at 6 weeks (end point). We considered a difference of at least 3 points to be clinically relevant. The analysis plan was previously published. Safety was measured with an adverse effects questionnaire, the young mania rating scale, and cognitive assessment. Secondary measures were rates of clinical response and remission and scores on other scales. RESULTS At the main end point, there was a significant difference in Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale scores when comparing the combined treatment group (sertraline/active tDCS) vs sertraline only (mean difference, 8.5 points; 95% CI, 2.96 to 14.03; P = .002), tDCS only (mean difference, 5.9 points; 95% CI, 0.36 to 11.43; P = .03), and placebo/sham tDCS (mean difference, 11.5 points; 95% CI, 6.03 to 17.10; P < .001). Analysis of tDCS only vs sertraline only presented comparable efficacies (mean difference, 2.6 points; 95% CI, -2.90 to 8.13; P = .35). Use of tDCS only (but not sertraline only) was superior to placebo/sham tDCS. Common adverse effects did not differ between interventions, except for skin redness on the scalp in active tDCS (P = .03). There were 7 episodes of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania, 5 occurring in the combined treatment group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In MDD, the combination of tDCS and sertraline increases the efficacy of each treatment. The efficacy and safety of tDCS and sertraline did not differ. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01033084.

Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Recent studies have used non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), to increase dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activity and, consequently, working memory (WM) performance. However, such experiments have yielded mixed results, possibly due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity of outcomes. Therefore, our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analyses on NIBS studies assessing the n-back task, which is a reliable index for WM. From the first data available to February 2013, we looked for sham-controlled, randomized studies that used NIBS over the DLPFC using the n-back task in PubMed/MEDLINE and other databases. Twelve studies (describing 33 experiments) matched our eligibility criteria. Active vs. sham NIBS was significantly associated with faster response times (RTs), higher percentage of correct responses and lower percentage of error responses. However, meta-regressions showed that tDCS (vs. rTMS) presented only an improvement in RT, and not in accuracy. This could have occurred in part because almost all tDCS studies employed a crossover design, possibly due to the reliable tDCS blinding. Study design was also associated with no improvement in correct responses in the active vs. sham groups. To conclude, rTMS of the DLPFC significantly improved all measures of WM performance whereas tDCS significantly improved RT, but not the percentage of correct and error responses. Mechanistic insights on the role of DLPFC in WM are further discussed, as well as how NIBS techniques could be used in neuropsychiatric samples presenting WM deficits, such as major depression, dementia and schizophrenia.

A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools.

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), including transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation (tDCS, tACS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques increasingly used for modulation of central nervous system excitability in humans. Here we address methodological issues required for tES application. This review covers technical aspects of tES, as well as applications like exploration of brain physiology, modelling approaches, tES in cognitive neurosciences, and interventional approaches. It aims to help the reader to appropriately design and conduct studies involving these brain stimulation techniques, understand limitations and avoid shortcomings, which might hamper the scientific rigor and potential applications in the clinical domain.

Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016.

This review updates and consolidates evidence on the safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Safety is here operationally defined by, and limited to, the absence of evidence for a Serious Adverse Effect, the criteria for which are rigorously defined. This review adopts an evidence-based approach, based on an aggregation of experience from human trials, taking care not to confuse speculation on potential hazards or lack of data to refute such speculation with evidence for risk. Safety data from animal tests for tissue damage are reviewed with systematic consideration of translation to humans. Arbitrary safety considerations are avoided. Computational models are used to relate dose to brain exposure in humans and animals. We review relevant dose-response curves and dose metrics (e.g. current, duration, current density, charge, charge density) for meaningful safety standards. Special consideration is given to theoretically vulnerable populations including children and the elderly, subjects with mood disorders, epilepsy, stroke, implants, and home users. Evidence from relevant animal models indicates that brain injury by Direct Current Stimulation (DCS) occurs at predicted brain current densities (6.3-13 A/m(2)) that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by conventional tDCS. To date, the use of conventional tDCS protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 milliamperes, ≤7.2 Coulombs) has not produced any reports of a Serious Adverse Effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1000 subjects with repeated sessions. This includes a wide variety of subjects, including persons from potentially vulnerable populations.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of heart rate variability in epilepsy and antiepileptic drugs

Purpose:  Epilepsy is associated with near‐fatal and fatal arrhythmias, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is partly related to cardiac events. Dysfunction of the autonomous nervous system causes arrhythmias and, although previous studies have investigated the effects of epilepsy on the autonomic control of the heart, the results are still mixed regarding whether imbalance of sympathetic, vagal, or both systems is present in epilepsy, and also the importance of anticonvulsant treatment on the autonomic system. Therefore, we aimed to investigate epilepsy and its treatment impact on heart rate variability (HRV), assessed by sympathetic and parasympathetic activity expressed as low‐frequency (LF) and high‐frequency (HF) power spectrum, respectively.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in unipolar vs. bipolar depressive disorder

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive method for brain stimulation. Although pilot trials have shown that tDCS yields promising results for major depressive disorder (MDD), its efficacy for bipolar depressive disorder (BDD), a condition with high prevalence and poor treatment outcomes, is unknown. In a previous study we explored the effectiveness of tDCS for MDD. Here, we expanded our research, recruiting patients with MDD and BDD. We enrolled 31 hospitalized patients (24 women) aged 30-70 years 17 with MDD and 14 with BDD (n = 14). All patients received stable drug regimens for at least two weeks before enrollment and drug dosages remained unchanged throughout the study. We applied tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (anodal electrode on the left and cathodal on the right) using a 2 mA-current for 20 min, twice-daily, for 5 consecutive days. Depression was measured at baseline, after 5 tDCS sessions, one week later, and one month after treatment onset. We used the scales of Beck (BDI) and Hamilton-21 items (HDRS). All patients tolerated treatment well without adverse effects. After the fifth tDCS session, depressive symptoms in both study groups diminished, and the beneficial effect persisted at one week and one month. In conclusion, our preliminary study suggests that tDCS is a promising treatment for patients with MDD and BDD.2.

Placebo Response of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Trials in Major Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Although meta-analyses have shown that placebo responses are large in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) trials; the placebo response of devices such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has not been systematically assessed. We proposed to assess placebo responses in two categories of MDD trials: pharmacological (antidepressant drugs) and non-pharmacological (device- rTMS) trials. Methodology/Principal Findings We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from April 2002 to April 2008, searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scielo and CRISP electronic databases and reference lists from retrieved studies and conference abstracts. We used the keywords placebo and depression and escitalopram for pharmacological studies; and transcranial magnetic stimulation and depression and sham for non-pharmacological studies. All randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel articles on major depressive disorder were included. Forty-one studies met our inclusion criteria - 29 in the rTMS arm and 12 in the escitalopram arm. We extracted the mean and standard values of depression scores in the placebo group of each study. Then, we calculated the pooled effect size for escitalopram and rTMS arm separately, using Cohens d as the measure of effect size. We found that placebo response are large for both escitalopram (Cohens d - random-effects model - 1.48; 95%C.I. 1.26 to 1.6) and rTMS studies (0.82; 95%C.I. 0.63 to 1). Exploratory analyses show that sham response is associated with refractoriness and with the use of rTMS as an add-on therapy, but not with age, gender and sham method utilized. Conclusions/Significance We confirmed that placebo response in MDD is large regardless of the intervention and is associated with depression refractoriness and treatment combination (add-on rTMS studies). The magnitude of the placebo response seems to be related with study population and study design rather than the intervention itself.