TDCS at home for depressive disorders: an updated systematic review and lessons learned from a prematurely terminated randomized controlled pilot study

Abstract

AbstractThe application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is the subject of current clinical trials. This is due to its positive safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and potential scalability for a wide outreach in clinical practice. Here, we provide a systematic review of the available studies and also a report on the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on tDCS at home for the treatment of MDD. This trial had to be prematurely terminated due to safety concerns. The HomeDC trial is a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with MDD (DSM-5) were randomized to active or sham tDCS. Patients conducted tDCS at home for 6 weeks with 5 sessions/week (30 min at 2 mA) anode over F3, cathode over F4. Sham tDCS resembled active tDCS, with ramp-in and ramp-out periods, but without intermittent stimulation. The study was prematurely terminated due to an accumulation of adverse events (AEs, skin lesions), so that only 11 patients were included. Feasibility was good. Safety monitoring was not sufficient enough to detect or prevent AEs within an appropriate timeframe. Regarding antidepressant effects, the reduction in depression scales over time was significant. However, active tDCS was not superior to sham tDCS in this regard. Both the conclusions from this review and the HomeDC trial show that there are several critical issues with the use of tDCS at home that need to be addressed. Nevertheless the array of transcranial electric simulation (TES) methods that this mode of application offers, including tDCS, is highly interesting and warrants further investigation in high quality RCTs. Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT05172505. Registration date: 12/13/2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05172505. Graphical abstract *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers) **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/