BACKGROUND:Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive form of neurostimulation with potential for development as a self-administered intervention. It has shown promise as a safe and effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in a small number of studies. The two most favourable stimulation targets appear to be the left orbitofrontal cortex (L-OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). We report the first study to test these targets head-to-head within a randomised sham-controlled trial. Our aim was to inform the design of future clinical research studies, by focussing on the acceptability and safety of the intervention, feasibility of recruitment, adherence to and tolerability of tDCS, and the size of any treatment-effect.METHODS:FEATSOCS was a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over, multicentre study. Twenty adults with DSM-5-defined OCD were randomised to treatment, comprising three courses of clinic-based tDCS (SMA, L-OFC, Sham), randomly allocated and delivered in counterbalanced order. Each course comprised four 20-min 2 mA stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by a 'washout' period of at least four weeks. Assessments were carried out by raters who were blind to stimulation-type. Clinical outcomes were assessed before, during, and up to four weeks after stimulation. Patient representatives with lived experience of OCD were actively involved at all stages.RESULTS:Clinicians showed willingness to recruit participants and recruitment to target was achieved. Adherence to treatment and study interventions was generally good, with only two dropouts. There were no serious adverse events, and adverse effects which did occur were transient and mostly mild in intensity. Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were numerically improved from baseline to 24 h after the final stimulation across all intervention groups but tended to worsen thereafter. The greatest effect size was seen in the L-OFC arm, (Cohen's d = -0.5 [95% CI -1.2 to 0.2] versus Sham), suggesting this stimulation site should be pursued in further studies. Additional significant sham referenced improvements in secondary outcomes occurred in the L-OFC arm, and to a lesser extent with SMA stimulation.CONCLUSIONS:tDCS was acceptable, practicable to apply, well-tolerated and appears a promising potential treatment for OCD. The L-OFC represents the most promising target based on clinical changes, though the effects on OCD symptoms were not statistically significant compared to sham. SMA stimulation showed lesser signs of promise. Further investigation of tDCS in OCD is warranted, to determine the optimal stimulation protocol (current, frequency, duration), longer-term effectiveness and brain-based mechanisms of effect. If efficacy is substantiated, consideration of home-based approaches represents a rational next step.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN17937049. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17937049.

Abstract Background Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a neuropsychiatric disorder which often proves refractory to current treatment approaches. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a noninvasive form of neurostimulation, with potential for development as a self-administered intervention, has shown potential as a safe and efficacious treatment for OCD in a small number of trials. The two most promising stimulation sites are located above the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). Methods The aim of this feasibility study is to inform the development of a definitive trial, focussing on the acceptability, safety of the intervention, feasibility of recruitment, adherence and tolerability to tDCS and study assessments and the size of the treatment effect. To this end, we will deliver a double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover randomised multicentre study in 25 adults with OCD. Each participant will receive three courses of tDCS (SMA, OFC and sham), randomly allocated and given in counterbalanced order. Each course comprises four 20-min stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by at least 4 weeks’ washout period. We will collect information about recruitment, study conduct and tDCS delivery. Blinded raters will assess clinical outcomes before, during and up to 4 weeks after stimulation using validated scales. We will include relevant objective neurocognitive tasks, testing cognitive flexibility, motor disinhibition, cooperation and habit learning. Discussion We will analyse the magnitude of the effect of the interventions on OCD symptoms alongside the standard deviation of the outcome measure, to estimate effect size and determine the optimal stimulation target. We will also measure the duration of the effect of stimulation, to provide information on spacing treatments efficiently. We will evaluate the usefulness and limitations of specific neurocognitive tests to determine a definitive test battery. Additionally, qualitative data will be collected from participants to better understand their experience of taking part in a tDCS intervention, as well as the impact on their overall quality of life. These clinical outcomes will enable the project team to further refine the methodology to ensure optimal efficiency in terms of both delivering and assessing the treatment in a full-scale trial. Trial registration ISRCTN17937049. (date applied 08/07/2019). Recruitment (ongoing) began 23rd July 2019 and is anticipated to complete 30th April 2021.

Many pharmacological and psychological approaches have been found efficacious in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), but many treatment-seeking patients will not respond and others will relapse despite continuing with interventions that initially had beneficial effects. Other patients will respond but then stop treatment early because of untoward effects such as sexual dysfunction, drowsiness, and weight gain. There is much scope for the development of novel approaches that could have greater overall effectiveness or acceptability than currently available interventions or that have particular effectiveness in specific clinical subgroups. 'Experimental medicine' studies in healthy volunteers model disease states and represent a proof-of-concept approach for the development of novel therapeutic interventions: they determine whether to proceed to pivotal efficacy studies and so can reduce delays in translating innovations into clinical practice. Investigations in healthy volunteers challenged with the inhalation of air 'enriched' with 7.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) indicate this technique provides a validated and robust experimental medicine model, mirroring the subjective, autonomic, and cognitive features of GAD. The anxiety response during CO2 challenge probably involves both central noradrenergic neurotransmission and effects on acid-base sensitive receptors and so may stimulate development of novel agents targeted at central chemosensors. Increasing awareness of the potential role of altered cytokine balance in anxiety and the interplay of cytokines with monoaminergic mechanisms may also encourage the investigation of novel agents with modulating effects on immunological profiles. Although seemingly disparate, these two approaches to treatment development may pivot on a shared mechanism in exerting anxiolytic-like effects through pharmacological effects on acid-sensing ion channels.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorization of mental disorders places “separation anxiety disorder” within the broad group of anxiety disorders, and its diagnosis no longer rests on establishing an onset during childhood or adolescence. In previous editions of DSM, it was included within the disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence, with the requirement for an onset of symptoms before the age of 18 years: symptomatic adults could only receive a retrospective diagnosis, based on establishing this early onset. The new position of separation anxiety disorder is based upon the findings of epidemiological studies that revealed the unexpectedly high prevalence of the condition in adults, often in individuals with an onset of symptoms after the teenage years; its prominent place within the DSM-5 group of anxiety disorders should encourage further research into its epidemiology, etiology, and treatment. This review examines the clinical features and boundaries of the condition, and offers guidance on how it can be distinguished from other anxiety disorders and other mental disorders in which “separation anxiety” may be apparent.

Pharmacological treatment forms part of much routine psychiatric practice. Many psychotropic drugs and psychotherapies are available for treating patients with mental disorders, but considerable numbers of individuals remain troubled by incapacitating symptoms even after a succession of evidence-based treatments. In this situation, many doctors consider prescribing a psychotropic medication outside the narrow terms of its market authorisation or 'product licence', in an attempt to optimise clinical outcomes and increase the chance of recovery. Despite expressed concerns about potential hazards and increased physician liability, many authorities agree that using a drug outside the narrow terms of its product licence can be an important part of clinical practice. This paper illustrates the nature and extent of the use of licensed drugs for unlicensed applications in psychiatric and other medical settings, indicates potential drawbacks and hazards, and makes recommendations for a suggested process when prescribing 'off-label', as an appropriate part of the overall management of individual patients.