Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Recommendations for pharmacological treatments of major depression with specific comorbid psychiatric conditions are lacking. Method The French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology and the fondation FondaMental developed expert consensus guidelines for the management of depression based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriatneness Method. Recommendations for lines of treatment are provided by the scientific committee after data analysis and interpretation of the results of a survey of 36 psychiatrist experts in the field of major depression and its treatments. Results The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinician’s opinion to produce recommendations for major depression with comorbid anxiety disorders, personality disorders or substance use disorders and in geriatric depression. Conclusion These guidelines provide direction addressing common clinical dilemmas that arise in the pharmacologic treatment of major depression with comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Background Clear guidance for successive antidepressant pharmacological treatments for non-responders in major depression is not well established. Method Based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology and the fondation FondaMental developed expert consensus guidelines for the management of treatment-resistant depression. The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinicians’ opinions to produce recommendations for treatment-resistant depression. A written survey comprising 118 questions related to highly-detailed clinical presentations was completed on a risk-benefit scale ranging from 0 to 9 by 36 psychiatrist experts in the field of major depression and its treatments. Key-recommendations are provided by the scientific committee after data analysis and interpretation of the results of the survey. Results The scope of these guidelines encompasses the assessment of pharmacological resistance and situations at risk of resistance, as well as the pharmacological and psychological strategies in major depression. Conclusion The expert consensus guidelines will contribute to facilitate treatment decisions for clinicians involved in the daily assessment and management of treatment-resistant depression across a number of common and complex clinical situations.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-pharmacological intervention for depression. It has mixed results, possibly caused by study heterogeneity. To assess tDCS efficacy and to explore individual response predictors. Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Data were gathered from six randomised sham-controlled trials, enrolling 289 patients. Active tDCS was significantly superior to sham for response (34% v. 19% respectively, odds ratio (OR) = 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.32, number needed to treat (NNT) = 7), remission (23.1% v. 12.7% respectively, OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.22-4.64, NNT = 9) and depression improvement (B coefficient 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.57). Mixed-effects models showed that, after adjustment for other predictors and confounders, treatment-resistant depression and higher tDCS 'doses' were, respectively, negatively and positively associated with tDCS efficacy. The effect size of tDCS treatment was comparable with those reported for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and antidepressant drug treatment in primary care. The most important parameters for optimisation in future trials are depression refractoriness and tDCS dose.

In sports science, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has many unknown effects on neuromuscular, psychomotor and cognitive aspects. Particularly, its impact on power performances remains poorly investigated. Eighteen healthy young males, all trained in a jumping sport (parkour) performed three experimental sessions: anodal tDCS applied either on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC, cathode in supraorbital area) or on the primary motor cortex (M1, cathode on contralateral shoulder), and a placebo condition (SHAM), each applied for 20 min at 2 mA. Pre and post, maximal vertical and horizontal jumps were performed, associated to leg neuromuscular assessment through electromyography and peripheral nerve stimulations. Actual and imagined pointing tasks were also performed to evaluate fine motor skills, and a full battery of cognitive and psychomotor tests was administered. M1 tDCS improved jump performance accompanied by an increase in supraspinal and spinal excitabilities. dlPFC stimulation only impacted the pointing tasks. No effect on cognitive tests was found for any of the tDCS conditions. To conclude, the type of performance (maximal versus accurate) affected depended upon the tDCS montage. Finally, athletes responded well to tDCS for motor performance while results to cognitive tests seemed unaffected, at least when implemented with the present rationale.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is used to modulate brain function, and can modulate motor and postural control. While the acute effect of tDCS is well documented on patients, little is still known whether tDCS can alter the motor control of healthy trained participants. This study aimed to assess the acute effect of tDCS on postural control of parkour practitioners, known for their good balance abilities and their neuromuscular specificities that make them good candidates for tDCS intervention. Eighteen parkour practitioners were tested on three occasions in the laboratory for each stimulation condition (2 mA; 20 minutes)–primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and sham (placebo). Postural control was evaluated PRE and POST each stimulation by measuring Center of Pressure (CoP) displacements on a force platform during static conditions (bipedal and unipedal stance). Following M1 stimulation, significant decreases were observed in CoP area in unipedal (from 607.1 ± 297.9 mm 2 to 451.1 ± 173.9 mm 2 , P = 0.003) and bipedal (from 157.5 ± 74.1 mm 2 to 117.6 ± 59.8 mm 2 P<0.001) stances. As well, the CoP total length was significantly reduced in bipedal (from 3416.8 ± 295.4 mm to 3280.6 ± 306.2 mm, P = 0.005) as well as in unipedal stance (from 4259.6 ± 398.4 mm to 3846.5 ± 468.9 mm, P<0.001), only after M1 stimulation. Relative pre-post changes observed after M1 stimulation were negatively correlated to experience in parkour only after unipedal stance (r = 0.715, P<0.001), meaning that the more participants were trained the less tDCS was effective. No significant changes were noticed after sham and dlPFC stimulation. These results suggested that the modulation of gait performance in athletes following an acute intervention of tDCS is specific to the targeted brain region, and that postures with reduced base of support (such as unipedal stance) were more sensitive to tDCS.

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is promising for improving motor and cognitive performance. Nevertheless, its mechanisms of action are unclear and need to be better characterised according to the stimulated brain area and the type of exercise performed. Methods/design This is a double-blind crossover study, organised into two parts: the first is to assess the effects of tDCS on explosive performance (jump task) and the second is to assess the effects on endurance performance (cycling time trial task). Participants, who are recreationally active or athletes (parkour practitioners, cyclists), will receive two active tDCS sessions (over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and right motor cortex) and one sham tDCS session (part A), or two sequences (one active and one sham) of two daily tDCS sessions over 5 days (part B). Motor and cognitive performance will be compared before and after tDCS sessions (part A), and before and after the first session, after the last session and at day 12 and day 30 of each tDCS sequence (part B). Discussion This study investigates the acute and repeated effects of tDCS on the motor and cognitive performance of healthy subjects. It will try to evaluate if tDCS could be considered as a neuroenhancement technology according to the physical task investigated (endurance versus explosive). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03937115 . Registered on 3 May 2019; retrospectively registered.

Background Impulsivity is a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and is closely related to suicide risk and destructive and aggressive behaviors. Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown its promising effects as an intervention to modulate impulsivity, no study has explored its potential regarding BPD. Methods/design This is a multicenter, crossover, double-blind study comparing active versus sham tDCS (2 mA, 30 min), applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for five consecutive days in 50 BPD patients. Participants will be assessed for impulsivity, depressive symptoms, and suicide risk. The main efficacy criteria on reduction of impulsivity will be the amplitude variation of one specific evoked potential detected by electroencephalography (EEG) during the balloon analogue risk task. Baseline measures will be compared to scores obtained immediately after sessions, then 12 and 30 days later. Discussion This study investigates the safety and effects of tDCS, which may have a significant impact on impulsivity in patients with BPD and may be useful to reduce risky behaviors. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498937 . Registered on 17 April 2018.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is associated with progressive memory loss and decline in executive functions, as well as neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patients usually consider quality of life (QoL) and mood as more important for their health status than disease-specific physical and mental symptoms. In this open-label uncontrolled trial, 12 subjects diagnosed with AD underwent 10 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (10 Hz, 20 min, 2000 pulses/day, 110% MT). Outcomes were measured before and 30 days after treatment. Our primary objective was to test the efficacy of rTMS as an add-on treatment for AD on the global cognitive function, assessed through the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS). As secondary objectives, the detailed effect on cognitive functions, depression and anxiety symptoms, QoL, and functionality in daily life activities were evaluated, as well as correlations between QoL and cognition, depression and anxiety scores. The treatment significantly enhanced semantic memory and reduced anxiety. Improvement of these features in AD could become an important target for treatment strategies. Although limited by its design, this trial may contribute with another perspective on the analysis and the impact of rTMS on AD.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) might be a promising treatment strategy for depression. As disturbances in psychomotor activity are one of the key features of unipolar depression are, we aimed to evaluate the behavioral effects of ten tDCS sessions over a 5-day period on psychomotor retardation in depressed patients. Methods: Twenty-three treatment-resistant depressed patients received either active or sham anodal tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA, 10 sessions over 1 week). Psychomotor functioning was registered by means of observer ratings (Salpêtrière Retardation Rating Scale—SRRS) and objective measures (kinematical analysis of movements, automatic imitation). Results: tDCS sessions resulted in improvements on SRRS scores, although active tDCS was not significantly superior to sham tDCS on the kinematical parameters. Furthermore, no general additional antidepressant effect of tDCS was observed. The relatively small sample size and the short periods of observation should be considered when interpreting these results. Conclusion: tDCS did not induce a clinically relevant effect on psychomotor function in active and sham stimulation groups.

[...]there remains a significant role for intermediate-acting NMBAs in clinical practice in the world. [...]French anesthetists tend to prioritise the search for reasons to use potentially less allergenic NMBAs, whereas this risk seems to be ignored in other countries [ 8]. [...]the score for each respondent ranged between 1 which represented an overall inclination to use protocol A and 100 which represented an overall inclination to use protocol B (appendix 1). A mixed ANOVA was performed on risk estimates, with DMP as the between-subjects factor and clinical scenarios as the within-subject factor.