Transcranial direct current stimulation as an additional treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in adults with major depressive disorder in Germany (DepressionDC): a triple-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, multicentre trial

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been proposed as a feasible treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). However, meta-analytic evidence is heterogenous and data from multicentre trials are scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy of tDCS versus sham stimulation as an additional treatment to a stable dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in adults with MDD.

Methods: The DepressionDC trial was triple-blind, randomised, and sham-controlled and conducted at eight hospitals in Germany. Patients being treated at a participating hospital aged 18-65 years were eligible if they had a diagnosis of MDD, a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version), no response to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode, and treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before inclusion; the SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation. Patients were allocated (1:1) by fixed-blocked randomisation to receive either 30 min of 2 mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks, or sham stimulation at the same intervals. Randomisation was stratified by site and baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score (ie, <31 or ≥31). Participants, raters, and operators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change on the MADRS at week 6, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment session. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02530164).

Findings: Between Jan 19, 2016, and June 15, 2020, 3601 individuals were assessed for eligibility. 160 patients were included and randomly assigned to receive either active tDCS (n=83) or sham tDCS (n=77). Six patients withdrew consent and four patients were found to have been wrongly included, so data from 150 patients were analysed (89 [59%] were female and 61 [41%] were male). No intergroup difference was found in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 between the active tDCS group (n=77; -8·2, SD 7·2) and the sham tDCS group (n=73; -8·0, 9·3; difference 0·3 [95% CI -2·4 to 2·9]). Significantly more participants had one or more mild adverse events in the active tDCS group (50 [60%] of 83) than in the sham tDCS group (33 [43%] of 77; p=0·028).

Interpretation: Active tDCS was not superior to sham stimulation during a 6-week period. Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD.

Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.