期刊
JAMA PSYCHIATRY
卷 75, 期 2, 页码 158-166出版社
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4040
关键词
-
类别
资金
- NARSAD Young Investigation grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation [13/20493]
- FAPESP Young Research Award from the Sao Paulo State Foundation [13/20493]
- National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [470904]
- Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel -Humboldt fellowship
- CAPES/Alexander von Humboldt fellowship
- Beneficent Association Alzira Denise Hertzog da Silva
- CAPES/Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia program National Institute of Biomarkers in Psychiatry
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 (beta(int) = -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.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据