Search

Importance: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is moderately effective for depression when applied by trained staff. It is not known whether self-applied tDCS, combined or not with a digital psychological intervention, is also effective., Objective: To determine whether fully unsupervised home-use tDCS, combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo, is effective for a major depressive episode., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a double-blinded, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial with 3 arms: (1) home-use tDCS plus a digital psychological intervention (double active); (2) home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (tDCS only), and (3) sham home-use tDCS plus digital placebo (double sham). The study was conducted between April 2021 and October 2022 at participants' homes and at Instituto de Psiquiatria do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Included participants were aged 18 to 59 years with major depression and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HDRS-17), score above 16, a minimum of 8 years of education, and access to a smartphone and internet at home. Exclusion criteria were other psychiatric disorders, except for anxiety; neurologic or clinical disorders; and tDCS contraindications., Interventions: tDCS was administered in 2-mA, 30-minute prefrontal sessions for 15 consecutive weekdays (1-mA, 90-second duration for sham) and twice-weekly sessions for 3 weeks. The digital intervention consisted of 46 sessions based on behavioral therapy. Digital placebo was internet browsing., Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in HDRS-17 score at week 6., Results: Of 837 volunteers screened, 210 participants were enrolled (180 [86%] female; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [9.3] years) and allocated to double active (n = 64), tDCS only (n = 73), or double sham (n = 73). Of the 210 participants enrolled, 199 finished the trial. Linear mixed-effects models did not reveal statistically significant group differences in treatment by time interactions for HDRS-17 scores, and the estimated effect sizes between groups were as follows: double active vs tDCS only (Cohen d, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.48 to 0.58; P = .86), double active vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.73 to 0.34; P = .47), and tDCS only vs double sham (Cohen d, -0.25; 95% CI, -0.76 to 0.27; P = .35). Skin redness and heat or burning sensations were more frequent in the double active and tDCS only groups. One nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in the tDCS only group., Conclusions and Relevance: Unsupervised home-use tDCS combined with a digital psychological intervention or digital placebo was not found to be superior to sham for treatment of a major depressive episode in this trial., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04889976.

Importance: The period from childhood to early adulthood involves increased susceptibility to the onset of mental disorders, with implications for policy making that may be better appreciated by disaggregated analyses of narrow age groups., Objective: To estimate the global prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs) associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders (SUDs) across 4 age groups using data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from the 2019 GBD study were used for analysis of mental disorders and SUDs. Results were stratified by age group (age 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, and 20 to 24 years) and sex. Data for the 2019 GBD study were collected up to 2018, and data were analyzed for this article from April 2022 to September 2023., Exposure: Age 5 to 9 years, 10 to 14 years, 15 to 19 years, and 20 to 24 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence rates with 95% uncertainty intervals (95% UIs) and number of YLDs., Results: Globally in 2019, 293 million of 2516 million individuals aged 5 to 24 years had at least 1 mental disorder, and 31 million had an SUD. The mean prevalence was 11.63% for mental disorders and 1.22% for SUDs. For the narrower age groups, the prevalence of mental disorders was 6.80% (95% UI, 5.58-8.03) for those aged 5 to 9 years, 12.40% (95% UI, 10.62-14.59) for those aged 10 to 14 years, 13.96% (95% UI, 12.36-15.78) for those aged 15 to 19 years, and 13.63% (95% UI, 11.90-15.53) for those aged 20 to 24 years. The prevalence of each individual disorder also varied by age groups; sex-specific patterns varied to some extent by age. Mental disorders accounted for 31.14 million of 153.59 million YLDs (20.27% of YLDs from all causes). SUDs accounted for 4.30 million YLDs (2.80% of YLDs from all causes). Over the entire life course, 24.85% of all YLDs attributable to mental disorders were recorded before age 25 years., Conclusions and Relevance: An analytical framework that relies on stratified age groups should be adopted for examination of mental disorders and SUDs from childhood to early adulthood. Given the implications of the early onset and lifetime burden of mental disorders and SUDs, age-disaggregated data are essential for the understanding of vulnerability and effective prevention and intervention initiatives.

Importance: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may improve symptoms of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, previous trials are characterized by small sample sizes, heterogeneous methodologies, and short treatment periods using clinic-based tDCS., Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of home-based tDCS in treating inattention symptoms in adult patients with ADHD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial (tDCS for the Treatment of Inattention Symptoms in Adult Patients With ADHD [TUNED]), conducted from July 2019 through July 2021 in a single-center outpatient academic setting. Of 277 potential participants screened by phone, 150 were assessed for eligibility on site, and 64 were included. Participants were adults with ADHD, inattentive or combined subtype. Exclusion criteria included current stimulant drug treatment, current moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, diagnosis of bipolar disorder with a manic or depressive episode in the last year, diagnosis of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder; 55 of participants completed follow-up after 4 weeks., Interventions: Thirty-minute daily sessions of home-based tDCS for 4 weeks, 2 mA anodal-right and cathodal-left prefrontal stimulation with 35-cm2 carbon electrodes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Inattentive scores in the clinician-administered version of the Adult ADHD Self-report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS-I)., Results: Included in this trial were 64 participants with ADHD (31 [48%] inattentive presentation and 33 [52%] combined presentation), with a mean (SD) age of 38.3 (9.6) years. Thirty participants (47%) were women and 34 (53%) were men. Fifty-five finished the trial. At week 4, the mean (SD) inattention score, as measured with CASRS-I, was 18.88 (5.79) in the active tDCS group and 23.63 (3.97) in the sham tDCS group. Linear mixed-effects models revealed a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (βinteraction = -3.18; 95% CI, -4.60 to -1.75; P < .001), showing decreased symptoms of inattention in the active tDCS group over the 3 assessments compared to the sham tDCS group. Mild adverse events were more frequent in the active tDCS group, particularly skin redness, headache, and scalp burn., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, daily treatment with a home-based tDCS device over 4 weeks improved attention in adult patients with ADHD who were not taking stimulant medication. Home-based tDCS could be a nonpharmacological alternative for patients with ADHD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04003740.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has coincided with an increase in depressive symptoms as well as a growing awareness of health inequities and structural racism in the United States., Objective: To examine the association of mental health with everyday discrimination during the pandemic in a large and diverse cohort of the All of Us Research Program., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using repeated assessments in the early months of the pandemic, mixed-effects models were fitted to assess the associations of discrimination with depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation, and inverse probability weights were applied to account for nonrandom probabilities of completing the voluntary survey., Main Outcomes and Measures: The exposure and outcome measures were ascertained using the Everyday Discrimination Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), respectively. Scores for PHQ-9 that were greater than or equal to 10 were classified as moderate to severe depressive symptoms, and any positive response to the ninth item of the PHQ-9 scale was considered as presenting suicidal ideation., Results: A total of 62 651 individuals (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [15.9] years; female sex at birth, 41 084 [65.6%]) completed at least 1 assessment between May and July 2020. An association with significantly increased likelihood of moderate to severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation was observed as the levels of discrimination increased. There was a dose-response association, with 17.68-fold (95% CI, 13.49-23.17; P < .001) and 10.76-fold (95% CI, 7.82-14.80; P < .001) increases in the odds of moderate to severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation, respectively, on experiencing discrimination more than once a week. In addition, the association with depressive symptoms was greater when the main reason for discrimination was race, ancestry, or national origins among Hispanic or Latino participants at all 3 time points and among non-Hispanic Asian participants in May and June 2020. Furthermore, high levels of discrimination were as strongly associated with moderate to severe depressive symptoms as was history of prepandemic mood disorder diagnosis., Conclusions and Relevance: In this large and diverse sample, increased levels of discrimination were associated with higher odds of experiencing moderate to severe depressive symptoms. This association was particularly evident when the main reason for discrimination was race, ancestry, or national origins among Hispanic or Latino participants and, early in the pandemic, among non-Hispanic Asian participants.

Importance: Negative symptoms have a detrimental impact on functional outcomes and quality of life in people with schizophrenia, and few therapeutic options are considered effective for this symptomatic dimension. Studies have suggested that noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions may be effective in treating negative symptoms. However, the comparative efficacy of different NIBS protocols for relieving negative symptoms remains unclear., Objective: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of different NIBS interventions for treating negative symptoms., Data Sources: The ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched from inception through December 7, 2021., Study Selection: A frequentist model network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the pooled findings of trials that evaluated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation, transcranial random noise stimulation, transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation on negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining NIBS interventions for participants with schizophrenia were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Data were independently extracted by multiple observers. The pair-wise meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model., Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were changes in the severity of negative symptoms and acceptability (ie, dropout rates owing to any reason). Secondary outcomes were changes in positive and depressive symptoms., Results: Forty-eight RCTs involving 2211 participants (mean [range] age, 38.7 [24.0-57.0] years; mean [range] proportion of female patients, 30.6% [0%-70.0%]) were included. Compared with sham control interventions, excitatory NIBS strategies (standardized mean difference [SMD]: high-definition transcranial random noise stimulation, -2.19 [95% CI, -3.36 to -1.02]; intermittent theta-burst stimulation, -1.32 [95% CI, -1.88 to -0.76]; anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, -1.28 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.02]; high-frequency rTMS, -0.43 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.18]; extreme high-frequency rTMS, -0.45 [95% CI, -0.79 to -0.12]) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with or without other inhibitory stimulation protocols in the contralateral regions of the brain were associated with significantly larger reductions in negative symptoms. Acceptability did not significantly differ between the groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis, excitatory NIBS protocols over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were associated with significantly large improvements in the severity of negative symptoms. Because relatively few studies were available for inclusion, additional well-designed, large-scale RCTs are warranted.

Importance: Negative symptoms represent a substantial burden in schizophrenia. Although preliminary studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is effective for some clusters of symptoms, the clinical benefits for negative symptoms are unclear., Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS vs sham as an add-on treatment for patients with schizophrenia and predominant negative symptoms., Design, Setting, and Participants: The double-blind Schizophrenia Treatment With Electric Transcranial Stimulation (STARTS) randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2014 to March 2018 in 2 outpatient clinics in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients with schizophrenia with stable negative and positive symptoms and a minimum score of 20 points in the negative symptoms subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were included., Interventions: Ten sessions of tDCS performed twice a day for 5 days or a sham procedure. The anode and the cathode were positioned over the left prefrontal cortex and the left temporoparietal junction, respectively., Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at week 6 was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up for an additional 6 weeks., Results: Of the 100 included patients, 20 (20.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 35.3 (9.3) years. A total of 95 patients (95.0%) finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients receiving active tDCS showed a significantly greater improvement in PANSS score compared with those receiving the sham procedure (difference, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.51-3.79; number needed to treat, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.12-6.99; P < .001). Response rates for negative symptoms (20% improvement or greater) were also higher in the active group (20 of 50 [40%]) vs the sham group (2 of 50 [4%]) (P < .001). These effects persisted at follow-up. Transcranial direct current stimulation was well tolerated, and adverse effects did not differ between groups, except for burning sensation over the scalp in the active group (43.8%) vs the sham group (14.3%) (P = .003)., Conclusions and Relevance: Transcranial direct current stimulation was effective and safe in ameliorating negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02535676.

Importance: More effective, tolerable interventions for bipolar depression treatment are needed. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel therapeutic modality with few severe adverse events that showed promising results for unipolar depression., Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial (the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial [BETTER]) was conducted from July 1, 2014, to March 30, 2016, at an outpatient, single-center academic setting. Participants included 59 adults with type I or II bipolar disorder in a major depressive episode and receiving a stable pharmacologic regimen with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) scores higher than 17. Data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat sample., Interventions: Ten daily 30-minute, 2-mA, anodal-left and cathodal-right prefrontal sessions of active or sham tDCS on weekdays and then 1 session every fortnight until week 6., Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in HDRS-17 scores at week 6., Results: Fifty-nine patients (40 [68%] women), with a mean (SD) age of 45.9 (12) years participated; 36 (61%) with bipolar I and 23 (39%) with bipolar II disorder were randomized and 52 finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the active tDCS condition showed significantly superior improvement compared with those receiving sham (βint = -1.68; number needed to treat, 5.8; 95% CI, 3.3-25.8; P = .01). Cumulative response rates were higher in the active vs sham groups (67.6% vs 30.4%; number needed to treat, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.84-4.99; P = .01), but not remission rates (37.4% vs 19.1%; number needed to treat, 5.46; 95% CI, 3.38-14.2; P = .18). Adverse events, including treatment-emergent affective switches, were similar between groups, except for localized skin redness that was higher in the active group (54% vs 19%; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, tDCS was an effective, safe, and tolerable add-on intervention for this small bipolar depression sample. Further trials should examine tDCS efficacy in a larger sample., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152878.

Importance: Although several strategies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have been investigated as treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), their comparative efficacy and acceptability is unknown., Objective: To establish the relative efficacy and acceptability of the different modalities of rTMS used for MDD by performing a network meta-analysis, obtaining a clinically meaningful treatment hierarchy., Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched up until October 1, 2016., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that compared any rTMS intervention with sham or another rTMS intervention. Trials performing less than 10 sessions were excluded., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used standard forms for data extraction and quality assessment. Random-effects, standard pairwise, and network meta-analyses were performed to synthesize data., Main Outcomes and Measures: Response rates and acceptability (dropout rate). Remission was the secondary outcome. Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs., Results: Eighty-one studies (4233 patients, 59.1% women, mean age of 46 years) were included. The interventions more effective than sham were priming low-frequency (OR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.70-12.77), bilateral (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.37-6.60), high-frequency (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.24-4.21), θ-burst stimulation (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.07-6.05), and low-frequency (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.52-3.68) rTMS. Novel rTMS interventions (accelerated, synchronized, and deep rTMS) were not more effective than sham. Except for θ-burst stimulation vs sham, similar results were obtained for remission. All interventions were at least as acceptable as sham. The estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that priming low-frequency and bilateral rTMS might be the most efficacious and acceptable interventions among all rTMS strategies. However, results were imprecise and relatively few trials were available for interventions other than low-frequency, high-frequency, and bilateral rTMS., Conclusions and Relevance: Few differences were found in clinical efficacy and acceptability between the different rTMS modalities, favoring to some extent bilateral rTMS and priming low-frequency rTMS. These findings warrant the design of larger RCTs investigating the potential of these approaches in the short-term treatment of MDD. Current evidence cannot support novel rTMS interventions as a treatment for MDD., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: PROSPERO CRD42015019855.

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.