To evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and 2 or more prior antidepressant treatment failures (often referred to as treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). These patients are less likely to recover with medications alone and often consider nonpharmacologic treatments such as rTMS.
"It is important to discuss the relative effect size of these interventions. A meta-analysis found that rTMS is as effective as atypical antipsychotics (same NNT) in treatment-resistant depression (Gaynes et al. 2014), while other meta-analysis suggested that rTMS has the same effi cacy of commonly available antidepressant drugs in depression (Schutter 2009). A recent meta-analysis suggested that ECT seems superior to rTMS, although the quality of the included studies was low (Ren et al. 2014). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives. To evaluate whether the antidepressant effects of novel non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) therapies are associated with neurotrophic effects, indexed by peripheral brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels. Methods. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We included trials published in PubMed/Medline from the first date available to June 2014 measuring BDNF blood levels before and after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation in depression. Results. Eight datasets (n = 259) were included. These studies enrolled mostly treatment-resistant depression patients, who received daily stimulation sessions on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. BDNF did not increase after NIBS (Hedges' g = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.27), even when examining each intervention separately. Meta-regressions did not identify the influence of any clinical and demographic predictors on the outcome. Finally, Begg's funnel plot did not suggest publication bias and results were robust according to sensitivity analysis. Conclusions. Peripheral BDNF levels do not increase after NIBS in depression. Such biomarker might, therefore, not be suitable to index NIBS antidepressant response. Further trials are needed, particularly exploring non-medicated populations, performing subsequent BDNF assessments in a larger timeframe and employing more intensive NIBS treatment protocols.
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 09/2014; 16(2):1-9. DOI:10.3109/15622975.2014.958101 · 4.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in real-world clinical practice settings.
Forty-two US-based clinical TMS practice sites treated 307 outpatients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and persistent symptoms despite antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Treatment was based on the labeled procedures of the approved TMS device. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 2, at the point of maximal acute benefit, and at week 6 when the acute course extended beyond 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the Clinician Global Impressions-Severity of Illness from baseline to end of acute phase. Secondary outcomes were change in continuous and categorical outcomes on self-report depression scales (9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], and Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report [IDS-SR]).
Patients had a mean ± SD age of 48.6 ± 14.2 years and 66.8% were female. Patients received an average of 2.5 (± 2.4) antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration without satisfactory improvement in this episode. There was a significant change in CGI-S from baseline to end of treatment (-1.9 ± 1.4, P < .0001). Clinician-assessed response rate (CGI-S) was 58.0% and remission rate was 37.1%. Patient-reported response rate ranged from 56.4 to 41.5% and remission rate ranged from 28.7 to 26.5%, (PHQ-9 and IDS-SR, respectively).
Outcomes demonstrated response and adherence rates similar to research populations. These data indicate that TMS is an effective treatment for those unable to benefit from initial antidepressant medication.
Depression and Anxiety 12/2013; 29(7):587-96. DOI:10.1002/da.21969 · 4.41 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
While the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is well established, the debate is still open in relation to bipolar depression and to a possible different effectiveness of high vs. low stimulation. The present study was aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and tolerability of different protocols of augmentative rTMS in a sample of patients with current Major Depressive Episode (MDE), poor drug response/treatment resistance and a diagnosis of MDD or bipolar disorder.
Thirty-three patients were recruited in a 4-week, blind-rater, rTMS trial and randomised to the following three groups of stimulation: (1) (n=10) right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) 1 HZ, 110% of the motor threshold (MT), 420 stimuli/day; (2) (n=10) right DLPFC, 1Hz, 110% MT, 900 stimuli/day; (3) (n=13) left DLPFC, 10Hz, 80% MT, 750 stimuli/day.
Twenty-nine patients completed the treatment, showing a significant reduction of primary outcome measures (HAM-D, MADRS and CGI-S total scores: t=8.1, P<0.001; t=8.6, P<0.001; t=4.6, P<0.001 respectively). No significant differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability were found between high vs. low frequency and between unipolar and bipolar patients. Side effects were reported by 21% of the sample. One of the 4 dropouts was caused by a hypomanic switch.
Augmentative rTMS appeared to be effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression with features of poor drug response/treatment resistance, showing a comparable effectiveness profile between protocols of high and low frequency stimulation.
European Psychiatry 01/2015; 30(2). DOI:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2014.12.001 · 3.44 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.