The effects of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on working memory in the elderly with normal cognitive impairments

Abstract

Opioid substitution therapy involves replacing the client's primary drug of use (opioid) with a medically safe drug or the same opioid in a safer mode of administration under medical supervision. Objectives and methodology:It is a prospective follow up study observing opioid withdrawal and its stabilization on buprenorphine sublingual tablets. Patients who fulfilled the criteria for Opioid substitution therapy by NACO guidelines were enrolled and given buprenorphine sublingual tablets; (0.2 mg and 2 mg). They were followed up on 1 st to 3 rd , 7 th , 14 th and 28 th day for assessment of withdrawal and its resolution on buprenorphine. The withdrawal was assessed using Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS). Duration of study was 2 years.Results and conclusions: Total 44 patients were enrolled. 37 IDU users completed the period of observation. They belonged to 19 to 52 years age group, the duration of use ranged from 2 to 32 years. Patients had mild to moderate range of withdrawal. The mean score of COWS was 11.2 with a range of 5 to 24. Mean buprenorphine dose requirement on 1 st day was 6.19 mg with range from 1.2 mg to 14 mg. Dose requirement at day 28 was in the range from 0.6 to 16mg. This study is empirical information on the issue of a reference dosage for buprenorphine regimen in an Indian population. We found that dosages required in our study population were lesser that dosage guidelines in western countries. However further research on such lines is required to suggest guidelines for Indian population.

Transcranial direct current stimulation interventions for cognition in older adults

“…This was not significantly different from the overall effect size at shortterm durations (95% CI [-0.3609, 0.2141], p = 0.617). However, there was significant heterogeneity Seo et al, 2011Sandrini et al, 2019Prehn et al, 2011Nissim et al, 2019Moghadam et al, 2020Medvedeva et al, 2019Manenti et al, 2017Ljubisavljevic et al, 2019Leach et al, 2019Kulzow et al, 2017Floel et al, 2012Di Rosa et al, 2019Cespon et al, 2017Branscheidt et al, 2017Antonenko et al, 2019Adenzato et al, 2019 Sandrini et al, 2019Prehn et al, 2017Moghadam et al, 2020Manenti et al, 2017Külzow et al, 2017Flöel et al, 2012 121 0.023) was not significant. A random effects meta-regression again revealed no significant influence of type of protocol (β = -0.173, 95% CI [-0.796, 0.450], p = 0.587), stimulation intensity (β = -0.239, 95% CI [-1.486, 1.009], p = 0.619) or number of sessions (β = 0.134, 95% CI [-0.054, 0.321], p = 0.162) on outcomes, but did suggest that studies without training had significantly greater effect sizes than studies without (β = -1.330, 95% CI [-2.526, -0.134], p = 0.029).…”