Article

Efficacy of rapid-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN (Impact Factor: 7.49). 04/2005; 30(2):83-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To systematically review the literature pertaining to rapid-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) compared with sham therapy for the treatment of a major depressive episode in order to arrive at qualitative and quantitative conclusions about the efficacy of rapid-rate rTMS.
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and abstracts from scientific meetings were searched for the years 1966 until July 2003. The search terms "transcranial magnetic stimulation" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation AND depression" were used. Eighty-seven randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of rTMS were referenced on MEDLINE. Nineteen of these involved treatment of a major depressive episode, and these were reviewed. Six met more specific inclusion criteria including the use of rapid-rate stimulation, application to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, evaluation with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and use of an intent-to-treat analysis. Scores on the 21-item HAM-D after treatment and standard deviations were extracted from each article for treatment and control subjects. A random-effects model was chosen for the meta-analysis, and the weighted mean difference was used as a summary measure.
Six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Two of these reported a significantly greater improvement in mood symptoms in the treatment versus the sham group. When combined in the meta-analysis, the overall weighted mean difference was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -4.5 to 2.3), and the results of a test for heterogeneity were not significant (chi2(5) = 5.81, p = 0.33).
This meta-analysis suggests that rapid-rate rTMS is no different from sham treatment in major depression; however, the power within these studies to detect a difference was generally low. Randomized controlled trials with sufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful difference are required.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
45 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) has often been suggested as a key modulator of emotional stimulus appraisal and regulation. Therefore, in clinical trials, it is one of the most frequently targeted regions for non-invasive brain stimulation such as repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS). In spite of various encouraging reports that demonstrate beneficial effects of rTMS in anxiety disorders, psychophysiological studies exploring the underlying neural mechanisms are sparse. Here we investigated how inhibitory rTMS influences early affective processing when applied over the right dlPFC. Before and after rTMS or sham stimulation, subjects viewed faces with fearful or neutral expressions while whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG) was recorded. Due to the disrupted functioning of the right dlPFC, visual processing in bilateral parietal, temporal, and occipital areas was amplified starting at around 90ms after stimulus onset. Moreover, increased fear-specific activation was found in the right TPJ area in a time interval between 110 and 170ms. These neurophysiological effects were reflected in slowed reaction times for fearful, but not for neutral faces in a facial expression identification task while there was no such effect on a gender discrimination control task. Our study confirms the specific and important role of the dlPFC in regulation of early emotional attention and encourages future clinical research to use minimal invasive methods such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) or direct current stimulation (tDCS).
    NeuroImage 07/2014; · 6.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment, but there has not been a meta-analysis report which evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of rTMS used as an augmentative strategy for antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treatment. We thus conducted this meta-analysis, aimed at clarifying whether rTMS enhances the efficacy of TRD.Methods We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs for studying the efficacy of rTMS versus (vs) sham condition when combined with antidepressants in TRD treatment, and screened the references of the previous meta-analysis about the rTMS for MDD treatment. Response rates and NNT were chose as the primary outcomes, and remission rates, change from baseline of HAMD scores, dropouts were used as secondary outcomes. For dichotomous data, an intention-to-treat analysis principle was applied; for continuous data, we calculated the standard mean difference between groups with a random-effect model. Sensitivity analysis was done to explore the source of heterogeneity and the factors which potentially impact the efficacy.ResultsSeven RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. The total sample size was 279, with 171 in the rTMS group and 108 in the sham group. The pooled response and remission rate for the rTMS and sham group was 46.6% and 22.1%, respectively; the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-12.45, z¿=¿3.60, p¿=¿0.0003, and the associated number needed to treat (NNT) was 3.4. rTMS group achieved a significant reduction of HAMD score than the sham group, the pooled SMD of change from baseline was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.15, z¿=¿5.75, p¿<¿0.00001]. Because of the small number of included RCTs, the preplanned sensitivity and subgroup analyses were finally abandoned. The dropouts in both groups were relatively low, indicating the high acceptability of rTMS.Conclusions For TRD patients, augmentative rTMS after the failure of medications significantly increases the effect of antidepressants, and rTMS was a safe strategy with relatively low adverse events and low dropout rate, suggesting that augmentative rTMS is an effective intervention for TRD.
    BMC Psychiatry 11/2014; 14(1):342. · 2.24 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from