IMPORTANCE Negative symptoms represent a substantial burden in schizophrenia. Although preliminary studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is effective for some clusters of symptoms, the clinical benefits for negative symptoms are unclear.OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy and safety of tDCS vs sham as an add-on treatment for patients with schizophrenia and predominant negative symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The double-blind Schizophrenia Treatment With Electric Transcranial Stimulation (STARTS) randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2014 to March 2018 in 2 outpatient clinics in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients with schizophrenia with stable negative and positive symptoms and a minimum score of 20 points in the negative symptoms subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were included. INTERVENTIONS Ten sessions of tDCS performed twice a day for 5 days or a sham procedure. The anode and the cathode were positioned over the left prefrontal cortex and the left temporoparietal junction, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESChange in the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at week 6 was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up for an additional 6 weeks. RESULTSOf the 100 included patients, 20 (20.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 35.3 (9.3) years. A total of 95 patients (95.0%) finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients receiving active tDCS showed a significantly greater improvement in PANSS score compared with those receiving the sham procedure (difference, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.51-3.79; number needed to treat, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.12-6.99; P < .001). Response rates for negative symptoms (20% improvement or greater) were also higher in the active group (20 of 50 [40%]) vs the sham group (2 of 50 [4%]) (P < .001). These effects persisted at follow-up. Transcranial direct current stimulation was well tolerated, and adverse effects did not differ between groups, except for burning sensation over the scalp in the active group (43.8%) vs the sham group (14.3%) (P = .003).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Transcranial direct current stimulation was effective and safe in ameliorating negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Background: There is mixed evidence on increasing rates of psychiatric disorders and symptoms during the 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.

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

No abstract

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 2,011 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 2008-2010 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.