Personalized Dose Selection for Treatment of Patients with Neuropsychiatric Disorders Using tDCS
2024

Personalized Dose Selection for Neuropsychiatric Disorders Using tDCS

Sample size: 100 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Bhattacharjee Sagarika, Kashyap Rajan, Sreeraj Vanteemar S., Sivakumar Palanimuthu T., Venkatasubramanian Ganesan, Desmond John E., Chen S. H. Annabel, Sathyaprabha T. N., Udupa Kaviraja

Primary Institution: National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, India

Hypothesis

Can individualizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) parameters improve treatment outcomes for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders?

Conclusion

The study found that conventional tDCS is more effective and safer than high-definition tDCS for patients with dementia, as it requires lower personalized dosages.

Supporting Evidence

  • Conventional tDCS resulted in higher current intensity and less variability at target regions compared to HD-tDCS.
  • 46% of dementia patients required dosages above the safety limit when using HD-tDCS.
  • Personalized dosages varied significantly between dementia patients and healthy individuals.

Takeaway

This study shows that different types of brain stimulation can work better for different people, especially for those with brain issues like dementia.

Methodology

The study simulated tDCS administration using T1-weighted brain images from 50 dementia patients, 25 depression patients, and 25 healthy individuals to estimate electric fields and required dosages.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in patient selection and the reliance on simulations for dosage calculations.

Limitations

The study's findings may not generalize to all neuropsychiatric disorders, and the exact threshold for physiological response in dementia patients is unknown.

Participant Demographics

50 dementia patients (average age 66.38, 20 females, 30 males), 25 depression patients (average age 67.52, 10 females, 15 males), and 25 healthy volunteers (average age 65.85, 11 females, 14 males).

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.0001

Statistical Significance

p<0.0001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.3390/brainsci14121162

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication