Search

Evidence indicates most people were resilient to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. However, evidence also suggests the pandemic effect on mental health may be heterogeneous. Therefore, we aimed to identify groups of trajectories of common mental disorders' (CMD) symptoms assessed before (2017-19) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and to investigate predictors of trajectories.We assessed 2,705 participants of the ELSA-Brasil COVID-19 Mental Health Cohort study who reported Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R) data in 2017-19 and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) data in May-July 2020, July-September 2020, October-December 2020, and April-June 2021. We used an equi-percentile approach to link the CIS-R total score in 2017-19 with the DASS-21 total score. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to identify CMD trajectories and adjusted multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate predictors of trajectories.Six groups of CMD symptoms trajectories were identified: low symptoms (17.6%), low-decreasing symptoms (13.7%), low-increasing symptoms (23.9%), moderate-decreasing symptoms (16.8%), low-increasing symptoms (23.3%), severe-decreasing symptoms (4.7%). The severe-decreasing trajectory was characterized by age 60 years, female sex, low family income, sedentary behavior, previous mental disorders, and the experience of adverse events in life.Pre-pandemic characteristics were associated with lack of response to assessments. Our occupational cohort sample is not representative.More than half of the sample presented low levels of CMD symptoms. Predictors of trajectories could be used to detect individuals at-risk for presenting CMD symptoms in the context of global adverse events.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been increasingly used over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) to enhance working memory (WM) performance. Not-withstanding, NIBS protocols have shown either small or inconclusive cognitive effects on healthy and neuropsychiatric samples. Therefore, we assessed working memory performance and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), and both therapies combined vs placebo over the neuronavigated left DLPFC of healthy participants. Twenty-four subjects were included to randomly undergo four sessions of NIBS, once a week: tDCS alone, iTBS alone, combined protocol and placebo. The 2-back task and an adverse effect scale were applied after each NIBS session. Results revealed a significantly faster response for iTBS (b=-21.49, p= 0.04), but not for tDCS and for the interaction tDCS vs. iTBS (b= 13.67, p= 0.26 and b= 40.5, p= 0.20, respectively). No changes were observed for accuracy and no serious adverse effects were found among protocols. Although tolerable, an absence of syner-gistic effects for the combined protocol was seen. Nonetheless, future trials accessing different outcomes for the combined protocols, as well as studies investigating iTBS over the left DLPFC for cognition and exploring sources of variability for tDCS are encouraged. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC -ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Background: The countermeasures used to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic might have impacted the mental health of populations around the world. Methods: We used data from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Health (ELSA-Brasil), a prospective cohort, to characterize the mental health of participants between 2018 (wave-3) and 2020 (wave-COVID). The Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R), a validated questionnaire, was used to assess the prevalence of common mental disorders (CMDs). The electronic survey was applied online in May-July 2020, during a severe quarantine phase in Satild;o Paulo. Results: Out of 4191 participants from wave-3, 2117 responded the questionnaire. Most were women, white, had a university degree and presented a mean age of 60 years-old. 517 (24.4%) presented at least one CMD, the most common being anxiety disorders (15.1%), mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (8.5%) and depressive disorders (2.8%). Such prevalence were not significantly different than at wave-3. Moreover, we observed a statistically significant increase in depressive ideas (9.7% to 12.3%, p = 0.001), sleep disturbances (31.8% to 35.1% p = 0.005), and phobic symptoms (9.8% to 12.7%, p = 0.001), and a decrease of fatigue and obsessive symptoms. No significant changes in somatic complaints, worries about physical health, worries, anxiety, panic symptoms, concentration, depression, irritability, and compulsion symptoms were observed. Conclusions: No changes in the prevalence of CMDs was observed in participants from Satild;o Paulo during a strict lockdown phase, although the pattern of mental symptoms presented subtle changes. A longer observational period might be necessary to detect a putative increase in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders.

Background There is mixed evidence on increasing rates of psychiatric disorders and symptoms during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. We evaluated pandemic-related psychopathology and psychiatry diagnoses and their determinants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Health (ELSA-Brasil) São Paulo Research Center. Methods Between pre-pandemic ELSA-Brasil assessments in 2008–2010 (wave-1), 2012–2014 (wave-2), 2016–2018 (wave-3) and three pandemic assessments in 2020 (COVID-19 waves in May–July, July–September, and October–December), rates of common psychiatric symptoms, and depressive, anxiety, and common mental disorders (CMDs) were compared using the Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Multivariable generalized linear models, adjusted by age, gender, educational level, and ethnicity identified variables associated with an elevated risk for mental disorders. Results In 2117 participants (mean age 62.3 years, 58.2% females), rates of CMDs and depressive disorders did not significantly change over time, oscillating from 23.5% to 21.1%, and 3.3% to 2.8%, respectively; whereas rate of anxiety disorders significantly decreased (2008–2010: 13.8%; 2016–2018: 9.8%; 2020: 8%). There was a decrease along three wave-COVID assessments for depression [β = −0.37, 99.5% confidence interval (CI) −0.50 to −0.23], anxiety (β = −0.37, 99.5% CI −0.48 to −0.26), and stress (β = −0.48, 99.5% CI −0.64 to −0.33) symptoms (all ps < 0.001). Younger age, female sex, lower educational level, non-white ethnicity, and previous psychiatric disorders were associated with increased odds for psychiatric disorders, whereas self-evaluated good health and good quality of relationships with decreased risk. Conclusion No consistent evidence of pandemic-related worsening psychopathology in our cohort was found. Indeed, psychiatric symptoms slightly decreased along 2020. Risk factors representing socioeconomic disadvantages were associated with increased odds of psychiatric disorders.

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is considered effective and safe for depression, albeit modestly, and prone to logistical burdens when performed in external facilities. Investigation of portable tES (ptES), and potentiation of ptES with remote psychological interventions have shown positive, but preliminary, results.We report the rationale and design of an ongoing multi-arm, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial with digital features, using ptES and internet-based behavioral therapy (iBT) for major depressive disorder (MDD) (NCT04889976).We will evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability and usability of (1) active ptES + active iBT ('double-active'), (2) active ptES + sham iBT ('ptES-only'), and (3) sham ptES + sham iBT ('double-sham'), in adults with MDD, with a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - 17 item version (HDRS-17) score ≥ 17 at baseline, during 6 weeks. Antidepressants are allowed in stable doses during the trial.We primarily co-hypothesize changes in HDRS-17 will be greater in (1) 'double-active' compared to 'ptES-only,' (2) 'double-active' compared to 'double-sham,' and (3) 'ptES-only' compared to 'double-sham.' We aim to enroll 210 patients (70 per arm).Our results should offer new insights regarding the efficacy and scalability of combined ptES and iBT for MDD, in digital mental health.

Introduction Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as monotherapy has been increasingly used to enhance the activity of brain networks. However, it is unclear whether a combination of distinct NIBS approaches could enhance prefrontal cortical (PFC) activity. Objective We propose to investigate the combined and standalone effects of two NIBS modalities on the PFC through a working memory task, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and salivary cortisol. We hypothesize that the combined protocol will provoke greater changes in the collected measures compared to the remining protocols. Methods A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, full-factorial design will be conducted. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) will be investigated over four different sessions (sham tDCS + sham iTBS, anodal tDCS + sham iTBS, anodal tDCS + active iTBS and sham tDCS + active iTBS) in 30 healthy adult volunteers. A 99mTc-ethylene cysteine dimer (99mTC-ECD) will be administered during the NIBS session and neuroimaging will be acquired within one hour. Salivary cortisol will be collected before and after each session and an n-back working memory task will be applied after the end of each NIBS session. The outcomes will be cerebral perfusion alterations (99mTC-ECD SPECT), accuracy and reaction time in the n-back task, and changes in salivary cortisol level. Conclusion The results from this trial can guide future therapeutic protocols for NIBS treatments stimulating the PFC by demonstrating that the combination of NIBS techniques is feasible, tolerable, and can lead to greater enhancement of PFC activity.

Mixed depression is probably different in terms of clinical course and response to treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is well established in non-mixed depression, and theta-burst stimulation (TBS) protocol is replacing conventional protocols because of noninferiority and reduced delivery time. However, TBS has not been adequately studied in mixed states. This study was a double-blind, six-week, sham-controlled, and randomized clinical trial of bilateral TBS targeting the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, respectively. Adults with bipolar and major depressive disorder experiencing an acute mixed depression were eligible if they had not benefited from a first- or second-line treatment for acute unipolar or bipolar depression recommended by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. Out of 100 patients included, 90 composed modified intention-to-treat sample, which was patients that completed at least one week of the intervention. There were no significant differences in Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale score changes (least squares mean difference between groups at week 3, −0.06 [95% CI, − 3.39 to 3.51; P = 0.97] in favor of sham TBS). Response and remission rates per MADRS were also not statistically different among active and sham groups (35.7% vs. 43.7%, and 28.5% vs. 37.5% respectively at week 6, ps > 0.51). No other analyses from baseline to weeks 3 or 6 revealed significant time x group interaction or mean differences among groups in the mITT sample. Bilateral TBS targeting the DLPFC is not efficacious as an add-on treatment of acute bipolar and unipolar mixed depression. ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT04123301

Introduction Mixed-specifier mood disorders are probably a different subgroup in terms of response to treatment, socio-demographic parameters, course, and family history. Here we describe the rationale and design of a clinical trial aimed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a non-pharmacological treatment known as theta-burst stimulation (TBS) for treating the mixed depressive episodes of both bipolar (I or II), and unipolar depression. Methods The study is designed as a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial evaluating TBS for the treatment of moderate or severe major depressive episodes with mixed features of patients receiving at least one first or second-line pharmacological treatment for depressive episodes without adequate response. Ninety adult (18 to 65 years old) patients will be enrolled and submitted to 6-week (comprising 5 consecutive days a week sessions for the first 3 weeks and then 2 days a week for a further 3 week) of inhibitory followed by excitatory TBS in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Participants will be assessed using clinical and neuropsychological tests before and after the intervention. The primary outcome is change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) score over time and across groups. Cognitive parameters will also be assessed with neuropsychological tests. Results The clinical results will provide evidence about TBS as an adjunctive treatment for mixed depression treatment and neuropsychological parameters will contribute toward an improved understanding the effects of TBS in cognition. Conclusion Our results could introduce a novel therapeutic technique for mixed depressive episodes of both bipolar and unipolar disorders. Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04123301; date of registration: 10/10/2019; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04123301?term=NCT04123301&rank=1.

Cohort studies have displayed mixed findings on changes in mental symptoms severity in 2020, when the COVID- 19 pandemic outbreak started. Network approaches can provide additional insights by analyzing the connectivity of such symptoms. We assessed the network structure of mental symptoms in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Health (ELSA-Brasil) in 3 waves: 2008–2010, 2017–2019, and 2020, and hypothesized that the 2020 network would present connectivity changes. We used the Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R) questionnaire to evaluates the severity of 14 common mental symptoms. Networks were graphed using unregularized Gaussian models and compared using centrality and connectivity measures. The predictive power of centrality measures and individual symptoms were also estimated. Among 2011 participants (mean age: 62.1 years, 58% females), the pandemic symptom 2020 network displayed higher overall connectivity, especially among symptoms that were related to general worries, with increased local connectivity between general worries and worries about health, as well as between anxiety and phobia symptoms. There was no difference between 2008 and 2010 and 2017–2019 networks. According to the network theory of mental disorders, external factors could explain why the network structure became more densely connected in 2020 compared to previous observations. We speculate that the COVID-19 pandemic and its innumerous social, economical, and political consequences were prominent external factors driving such changes; although further assessments are warranted.

Objective: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), are increasingly being used to treat mental disorders, particularly major depression. The aim of this comprehensive review is to summarize the main advances, limitations, and perspectives of the field. Methods: We searched PubMed and other databases from inception to July 2017 for articles, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluating the use of NIBS in psychiatric disorders. Results: We reviewed the mechanisms of action, safety, tolerability, efficacy, and relevant clinical parameters of NIBS. Repetitive TMS is already an established technique for the treatment of depression, and there is theoretically room for further methodological development towards a high-end therapeutic intervention. In contrast, tDCS is a technically easier method and therefore potentially suitable for wider clinical use. However the evidence of its antidepressant efficacy is less sound, and a recent study found tDCS to be inferior to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Clinical trials using rTMS for other mental disorders produced mixed findings, whereas tDCS use has not been sufficiently appraised. Conclusion: The most promising results of NIBS have been obtained for depression. These techniques excel in safety and tolerability, although their efficacy still warrants improvement.

Objectives We investigated the role of peripheral biomarkers associated with neuroplasticity and immune-inflammatory processes on the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a safe, affordable, and portable non-invasive neuromodulatory treatment, in bipolar depression. Methods This is an exploratory analysis using a dataset from the sham-controlled study the Bipolar Depression Electrical Treatment Trial (BETTER)( clinicaltrials.gov NCT02152878 ). Participants were 52 adults with type I or II bipolar disorder in a moderate-to-severe depressive episode, randomized to 12 bifrontal active or sham tDCS sessions over a 6-week treatment course. Plasma levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), glial cell derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), interleukins (IL) 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 18, 33, 1β, 12p70, 17a, interferon gamma (IFN), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) and its soluble receptors 1 and 2, ST2, and KLOTHO were investigated at baseline and endpoint. We performed analyses unadjusted for multiple testing to evaluate whether baseline biomarkers were predictive for depression improvement and changed during treatment using linear regression models. Results A time x group interaction (Cohen's d: -1.16, 95% CI = −1.96 to −0.3, p = .005) was found for IL-8, with greater reductions after active tDCS. Higher baseline IL-6 plasma levels was associated with symptomatic improvement after tDCS (F(1,43) = 5.43; p = .025). Other associations were not significant. Conclusions Our exploratory findings suggested that IL-6 is a potential predictor of tDCS response and IL-8 might decrease after tDCS; although confirmatory studies are warranted due to the multiplicity of comparisons.

Bipolar disorder is a prevalent condition, with few therapeutic options and a high degree of refractoriness. This justifies the development of novel non-pharmacological treatment strategies, such as the non-invasive techniques of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), as well as the invasive techniques of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). In this chapter, we provide a summary of the development of the techniques as well as the studies carried out with patients with bipolar disorder. Although many promising results regarding the efficacy of theses techniques were described, the total number of studies is still low, highlighting the need of further studies in larger samples as to provide a definite picture regarding the use of clinical neuromodulation in bipolar disorder.

Bipolar depression (BD) is a highly prevalent condition with limited therapeutic options. Deep (H1-coil) transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) is a novel TMS modality with established efficacy for unipolar depression. We conducted a randomized sham-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dTMS in treatment-resistant BD patients. Patients received 20 sessions of active or sham dTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (H1-coil, 55 18 Hz 2 s 120% MT trains). The primary outcome was changes in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) from baseline to endpoint (week 4). Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to the end of the follow-up phase (week 8), and response and remission rates. Safety was assessed using a dTMS adverse effects questionnaire and the Young Mania Rating Scale to assess treatment-emergent mania switch (TEMS). Out of 50 patients, 43 finished the trial. There were 2 and 5 dropouts in the sham and active groups, respectively. Active dTMS was superior to sham at end point (difference favoring dTMS=4.88; 95% CI 0.43 to 9.32, p=0.03) but not at follow-up. There was also a trend for greater response rates in the active (48%) vs sham (24%) groups (OR=2.92; 95% CI=0.87 to 9.78, p=0.08). Remission rates were not statistically different. No TEMS episodes were observed. Deep TMS is a potentially effective and well-tolerated add-on therapy in resistant bipolar depressed patients receiving adequate pharmacotherapy.

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 (β 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. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT02152878