Search

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a leading cause of disability, affects ~1-2% of the population, and can be distressing and disabling. About 1/3 of individuals demonstrate poor responsiveness to conventional treatments. A small proportion of these individuals may be deep brain stimulation (DBS) candidates. Candidacy is assessed through a multidisciplinary process including assessment of illness severity, chronicity, and functional impact. Optimization failure, despite multiple treatments, is critical during screening. Few patients nationwide are eligible for OCD DBS and thus a multi-center approach was necessary to obtain adequate sample size. The study was conducted over a six-year period and was a NIH-funded, eight-center sham-controlled trial of DBS targeting the ventral capsule/ventral striatum (VC/VS) region. There were 269 individuals who initially contacted the sites, in order to achieve 27 participants enrolled. Study enrollment required extensive review for eligibility, which was overseen by an independent advisory board. Disabling OCD had to be persistent for ≥5 years despite exhaustive medication and behavioral treatment. The final cohort was derived from a detailed consent process that included consent monitoring. Mean illness duration was 27.2 years. OCD symptom subtypes and psychiatric comorbidities varied, but all had severe disability with impaired quality of life and functioning. Participants were randomized to receive sham or active DBS for three months. Following this period, all participants received active DBS. Treatment assignment was masked to participants and raters and assessments were blinded. The final sample was consistent in demographic characteristics and clinical features when compared to other contemporary published prospective studies of OCD DBS. We report the clinical trial design, methods, and general demographics of this OCD DBS sample.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.644593.].

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer's disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank.

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the globus pallidus internus (GPi) can improve tics and comorbid obsessive-compulsive behavior (OCB) in patients with treatment-refractory Tourette syndrome (TS). However, some patients’ symptoms remain unresponsive, the stimulation applied across patients is variable, and the mechanisms underlying improvement are unclear. Identifying the fiber pathways surrounding the GPi that are associated with improvement could provide mechanistic insight and refine targeting strategies to improve outcomes. Methods: Retrospective data were collected for 35 patients who underwent bilateral GPi DBS for TS. Computational models of fiber tract activation were constructed using patient-specific lead locations and stimulation settings to evaluate the effects of DBS on basal ganglia pathways and the internal capsule. We first evaluated the relationship between activation of individual pathways and symptom improvement. Next, linear mixed-effects models with combinations of pathways and clinical variables were compared in order to identify the best-fit predictive models of tic and OCB improvement. Results: The best-fit model of tic improvement included baseline severity and the associative pallido-subthalamic pathway. The best-fit model of OCB improvement included baseline severity and the sensorimotor pallido-subthalamic pathway, with substantial evidence also supporting the involvement of the prefrontal, motor, and premotor internal capsule pathways. The best-fit models of tic and OCB improvement predicted outcomes across the cohort and in cross-validation. Conclusions: Differences in fiber pathway activation likely contribute to variable outcomes of DBS for TS. Computational models of pathway activation could be used to develop novel approaches for preoperative targeting and selecting stimulation parameters to improve patient outcomes.

[Background] Tic disorders belong to the broad spectrum of pediatric and adult movement disorders. The wide variability in clinical presentations, applied assessment tools, and treatments are poorly understood., [Objectives] To map practices and knowledge base of movement disorder clinicians concerning clinical features, pathophysiology, and treatment approaches in tic disorders. [Methods] A 33-item survey was developed by the Tic Disorders and Tourette syndrome Study Group members of the Movement Disorder Society. The survey was distributed to the complete society membership and included responses from 346 members, 314 of whom reported treating tic disorders. [Results] Approximately one third of survey respondents (35%) frequently evaluated patients with tics. The data revealed widespread use of existing guidelines (about 70%) and screening for comorbid disorders (>90%). The most common investigations used to rule out secondary causes of tics were imaging (92%), laboratory tests (66%) and neurophysiology (38%). Functional tics were the second most common tic etiology following primary tics. Only 27% of respondents reported confidence in knowledge about tic pathogenesis. Top rated interventions to treat tics were psychoeducation, cognitive behavioral intervention for tics (CBIT) and treatment for neuropsychiatric comorbidities. Antipsychotics were ranked as the most effective pharmacologic tic intervention. Conclusions: The majority of movement disorders specialists do not frequently encounter tics. There was sparse knowledge about tic pathophysiology. Psychoeducation, CBIT, the treatment of neuropsychiatric comorbidities and use of antipsychotics emerged as the most common interventions to treat tics. These results provide insight into what will be needed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of tic disorders.

© Copyright © 2019 Ramirez-Zamora, Giordano, Boyden, Gradinaru, Gunduz, Starr, Sheth, McIntyre, Fox, Vitek, Vedam-Mai, Akbar, Almeida, Bronte-Stewart, Mayberg, Pouratian, Gittis, Singer, Creed, Lazaro-Munoz, Richardson, Rossi, Cendejas-Zaragoza, D’Haese, Chiong, Gilron, Chizeck, Ko, Baker, Wagenaar, Harel, Deeb, Foote and Okun. The annual deep brain stimulation (DBS) Think Tank aims to create an opportunity for a multidisciplinary discussion in the field of neuromodulation to examine developments, opportunities and challenges in the field. The proceedings of the Sixth Annual Think Tank recapitulate progress in applications of neurotechnology, neurophysiology, and emerging techniques for the treatment of a range of psychiatric and neurological conditions including Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, Tourette syndrome, epilepsy, cognitive disorders, and addiction. Each section of this overview provides insight about the understanding of neuromodulation for specific disease and discusses current challenges and future directions. This year’s report addresses key issues in implementing advanced neurophysiological techniques, evolving use of novel modulation techniques to deliver DBS, ans improved neuroimaging techniques. The proceedings also offer insights into the new era of brain network neuromodulation and connectomic DBS to define and target dysfunctional brain networks. The proceedings also focused on innovations in applications and understanding of adaptive DBS (closed-loop systems), the use and applications of optogenetics in the field of neurostimulation and the need to develop databases for DBS indications. Finally, updates on neuroethical, legal, social, and policy issues relevant to DBS research are discussed.