Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances exposure–response prevention for contamination-related OCD: a randomized clinical trial

IF 8.7
Jian Gao, Wenjun Jia, Puzhe Li, Hui zhao, Liangjun Lin, Meiling Chen, Rui Gao, Xitong Liu, Tianran Zhang, Wenqing Zhao, Lian Gu, Jiejing Yu, Mu-Ming Poo, Dan J. Stein, Jianfeng Luo, Jian Jiang, Zhen Wang
{"title":"Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances exposure–response prevention for contamination-related OCD: a randomized clinical trial","authors":"Jian Gao, Wenjun Jia, Puzhe Li, Hui zhao, Liangjun Lin, Meiling Chen, Rui Gao, Xitong Liu, Tianran Zhang, Wenqing Zhao, Lian Gu, Jiejing Yu, Mu-Ming Poo, Dan J. Stein, Jianfeng Luo, Jian Jiang, Zhen Wang","doi":"10.1038/s44220-025-00410-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, we examined whether combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with exposure–response prevention (ERP) (tDCS + ERP) enhances obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) treatment efficacy compared to ERP alone. Fifty-three patients with OCD with contamination-related symptoms were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either active or sham anodal tDCS targeting the prefrontal cortex during ERP treatment, with the intervention comprising ten sessions over an eight-week primary endpoint. An electroencephalogram (EEG) was administered at baseline and after tDCS + ERP treatments 1 and 8, and magnetic resonance imaging was conducted at baseline. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores. We found a significantly larger percent reduction in Y-BOCS scores in the active group compared with the sham group after tDCS + ERP treatment 4 (active, 25.3 ± 2.2%; sham, 18.0 ± 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1–13.5%, F = 5.681, Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.021) and treatment 8 (active, 38.1 ± 3.0%; sham, 28.2 ± 3.0%, 95% CI, 1.3–18.4%, F = 5.406, Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.024). The secondary outcome measure was the response rate, defined as a reduction of ≥35% in the Y-BOCS score, which was 16/26 for patients treated with active tDCS and 8/27 for sham tDCS (active versus sham: 61.5% versus 29.6%, χ2 = 5.443, P = 0.020). No moderate or severe adverse effects were reported. An exploratory analysis of EEG-based brain state showed a marginally significant correlation (false discovery rate-corrected P = 0.08) between the final treatment outcome and tDCS-induced changes in microstate class A occurrence after the first active tDCS session. Concurrent tDCS could significantly enhance ERP’s therapeutic efficacy for contamination-related OCD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04527302 . In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, the authors examine whether the combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure–response prevention (ERP) is more effective than ERP alone at improving OCD symptoms.","PeriodicalId":74247,"journal":{"name":"Nature mental health","volume":"3 5","pages":"507-516"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-025-00410-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, we examined whether combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with exposure–response prevention (ERP) (tDCS + ERP) enhances obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) treatment efficacy compared to ERP alone. Fifty-three patients with OCD with contamination-related symptoms were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either active or sham anodal tDCS targeting the prefrontal cortex during ERP treatment, with the intervention comprising ten sessions over an eight-week primary endpoint. An electroencephalogram (EEG) was administered at baseline and after tDCS + ERP treatments 1 and 8, and magnetic resonance imaging was conducted at baseline. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores. We found a significantly larger percent reduction in Y-BOCS scores in the active group compared with the sham group after tDCS + ERP treatment 4 (active, 25.3 ± 2.2%; sham, 18.0 ± 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1–13.5%, F = 5.681, Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.021) and treatment 8 (active, 38.1 ± 3.0%; sham, 28.2 ± 3.0%, 95% CI, 1.3–18.4%, F = 5.406, Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.024). The secondary outcome measure was the response rate, defined as a reduction of ≥35% in the Y-BOCS score, which was 16/26 for patients treated with active tDCS and 8/27 for sham tDCS (active versus sham: 61.5% versus 29.6%, χ2 = 5.443, P = 0.020). No moderate or severe adverse effects were reported. An exploratory analysis of EEG-based brain state showed a marginally significant correlation (false discovery rate-corrected P = 0.08) between the final treatment outcome and tDCS-induced changes in microstate class A occurrence after the first active tDCS session. Concurrent tDCS could significantly enhance ERP’s therapeutic efficacy for contamination-related OCD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04527302 . In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, the authors examine whether the combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure–response prevention (ERP) is more effective than ERP alone at improving OCD symptoms.

Abstract Image

经颅直流电刺激增强污染相关强迫症的暴露反应预防:一项随机临床试验
在这项随机、双盲、对照试验中,我们研究了经颅直流刺激(tDCS)与暴露-反应预防(ERP) (tDCS + ERP)相结合是否能提高强迫症(OCD)的治疗效果。53名有污染相关症状的强迫症患者被纳入研究,随机分配在ERP治疗期间接受针对前额皮质的主动或假阳极tDCS治疗,干预包括10个疗程,主要终点为8周。在基线和tDCS + ERP治疗1和8后进行脑电图(EEG),并在基线进行磁共振成像。主要结果是耶鲁-布朗强迫症量表(Y-BOCS)分数下降的百分比。我们发现在tDCS + ERP治疗4(主动,25.3±2.2%;假手术,18.0±2.2%,95%可信区间(CI), 1.1-13.5%, F = 5.681, bonferroni校正P = 0.021)和治疗8(主动,38.1±3.0%,假手术,28.2±3.0%,95% CI, 1.3-18.4%, F = 5.406, bonferroni校正P = 0.024)后,治疗组Y-BOCS评分明显较假手术组下降了更大的百分比。次要结局指标是缓解率,定义为Y-BOCS评分降低≥35%,活动性tDCS治疗的缓解率为16/26,假性tDCS治疗的缓解率为8/27(活动性tDCS vs假性tDCS: 61.5% vs 29.6%, χ2 = 5.443, P = 0.020)。没有中度或重度不良反应的报道。基于脑电图的脑状态探索性分析显示,最终治疗结果与tDCS诱导的第一次活跃tDCS治疗后微状态a级变化之间存在显著相关性(错误发现率校正P = 0.08)。并发tDCS可显著提高ERP治疗污染相关性强迫症的疗效。ClinicalTrials.gov注册:NCT04527302。在这项随机双盲对照试验中,作者研究了经颅直流刺激和暴露反应预防(ERP)联合治疗在改善强迫症症状方面是否比单独应用ERP更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信