Daniel Meron1, Nicholas Hedger2, Matthew Garner3, David S Baldwin4. 1. Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Department of Psychiatry, Academic Centre, College Keep, 4-12 Terminus Terrace, Southampton SO14 3DT, United Kingdom; Avon & Wiltshire Partnership NHS Trust, Jenner House, Langley Park, Chippenham SN15 1GG, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: dan@soton.ac.uk. 2. Psychology, Faculty of Social, Human and Mathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nick.hedger@soton.ac.uk. 3. Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Department of Psychiatry, Academic Centre, College Keep, 4-12 Terminus Terrace, Southampton SO14 3DT, United Kingdom; Psychology, Faculty of Social, Human and Mathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: M.J.GARNER@soton.ac.uk. 4. Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Department of Psychiatry, Academic Centre, College Keep, 4-12 Terminus Terrace, Southampton SO14 3DT, United Kingdom; University Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: D.S.Baldwin@soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potential alternative treatment option for major depressive episodes (MDE). OBJECTIVES: We address the efficacy and safety of tDCS in MDE. METHODS: The outcome measures were Hedges' g for continuous depression ratings, and categorical response and remission rates. RESULTS: A random effects model indicated that tDCS was superior to sham tDCS (k=11, N=393, g=0.30, 95% CI=[0.04, 0.57], p=0.027). Adjunctive antidepressant medication and cognitive control training negatively impacted on the treatment effect. The pooled log odds ratios (LOR) for response and remission were positive, but statistically non-significant (response: k=9, LOR=0.36, 95% CI[-0.16, 0.88], p=0.176, remission: k=9, LOR=0.25, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.91], p=0.468). We estimated that for a study to detect the pooled continuous effect (g=0.30) at 80% power (alpha=0.05), a total N of at least 346 would be required (with the total N required to detect the upper and lower bound being 49 and 12,693, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: tDCS may be efficacious for treatment of MDE. The data do not support the use of tDCS in treatment-resistant depression, or as an add-on augmentation treatment. Larger studies over longer treatment periods are needed.
BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potential alternative treatment option for major depressive episodes (MDE). OBJECTIVES: We address the efficacy and safety of tDCS in MDE. METHODS: The outcome measures were Hedges' g for continuous depression ratings, and categorical response and remission rates. RESULTS: A random effects model indicated that tDCS was superior to sham tDCS (k=11, N=393, g=0.30, 95% CI=[0.04, 0.57], p=0.027). Adjunctive antidepressant medication and cognitive control training negatively impacted on the treatment effect. The pooled log odds ratios (LOR) for response and remission were positive, but statistically non-significant (response: k=9, LOR=0.36, 95% CI[-0.16, 0.88], p=0.176, remission: k=9, LOR=0.25, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.91], p=0.468). We estimated that for a study to detect the pooled continuous effect (g=0.30) at 80% power (alpha=0.05), a total N of at least 346 would be required (with the total N required to detect the upper and lower bound being 49 and 12,693, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: tDCS may be efficacious for treatment of MDE. The data do not support the use of tDCS in treatment-resistant depression, or as an add-on augmentation treatment. Larger studies over longer treatment periods are needed.
Authors: Roumen V Milev; Peter Giacobbe; Sidney H Kennedy; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Jonathan Downar; Mandana Modirrousta; Simon Patry; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Raymond W Lam; Glenda M MacQueen; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Bharathi S Gadad; Manish K Jha; Andrew Czysz; Jennifer L Furman; Taryn L Mayes; Michael P Emslie; Madhukar H Trivedi Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Richard T Liu; Zoë M Trout; Evelyn M Hernandez; Shayna M Cheek; Nimesha Gerlus Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Sarah Marchina; Jessica M Pisegna; Joseph M Massaro; Susan E Langmore; Courtney McVey; Jeffrey Wang; Sandeep Kumar Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Fuad Ahmad Hazime; Ronaldo Alves da Cunha; Renato Rozenblit Soliaman; Ana Clara Bezerra Romancini; Alberto de Castro Pochini; Benno Ejnisman; Abrahão Fontes Baptista Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-06