Dataset Information

Factors associated with antidepressant responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in antidepressant-resistant depression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) failed to respond to antidepressant medications. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective option for treating such treatment-resistant patients with MDD (TRD). Reliable clinical predictors for antidepressant responses to rTMS remain elusive.

Methods

In total, 212 patients with MDD who failed to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial and had a detailed evaluation before rTMS were recruited for chart review. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, symptom ratings [e.g., objective and subjective depression, life stress, depression refractoriness by Maudsley Staging Method (MSM)], and antidepressant treatment responses were analyzed.

Results

MSM-subitem1 (duration of current depressive episode; Beta = 0.209, p = 0.004), MSM-subitem5 (a history of ECT treatment; Beta = -0.210, p = 0.004), and psychiatric admissions (Beta = 0.241, p = 0.001) predicted antidepressant response of rTMS treatment. ECT was underutilized (only 3.3%). Psychiatric admissions [Exp(B) = 1.382, p = 0.021], a comorbidity of OCD [0.047, 0.005], and life stress level [0.984, 0.029] predicted the history of ECT treatment.

Conclusion

Several clinical variables (e.g., number of psychiatric admissions, OCD as a comorbidity, and life stress level) were reliable clinical factors associated with antidepressant responses of rTMS treatment and may be utilized in combination with MSM subitems to evaluate levels of TRD.

SUBMITTER: Li CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9757691 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors associated with antidepressant responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in antidepressant-resistant depression.

Li Cheng-Ta CT Su Tung-Ping TP Cheng Chih-Ming CM Chen Mu-Hong MH Bai Ya-Mei YM Tsai Shih-Jen SJ

Frontiers in neuroscience 20221202

<h4>Background</h4>A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) failed to respond to antidepressant medications. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective option for treating such treatment-resistant patients with MDD (TRD). Reliable clinical predictors for antidepressant responses to rTMS remain elusive.<h4>Methods</h4>In total, 212 patients with MDD who failed to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial and had a detailed eval ...[more]

PMID: 36532273

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can target specific neural circuits, which may allow for personalized treatment of depression. Treatment outcome is typically determined using sum scores from validated measurement scales; however, this may obscure differential improvements within distinct symptom domains. The objectives for this work were to determine: (1) whether a standard depression measure can be represented using a four symptom cluster model and (2) whether these symptom clusters had a differential response to rTMS treatment.MethodsData were obtained from two multi-centre randomized controlled trials of rTMS delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for participants with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) conducted in Canada (THREE-D [Conducted between Sept 2013, and Oct 2016] and CARTBIND [Conducted between Apr 2016 and Feb 2018]). The first objective used confirmatory factor analytic techniques, and the second objective used a linear mixed effects model. Trial Registration: NCT01887782, NCT02729792.FindingsIn the total sample of 596 participants with TRD, we found a model consisting of four symptom clusters adequately fit the data. The primary analysis using the THREE-D treatment trial found that symptom clusters demonstrated a differential response to rTMS treatment (F(3,5984) = 31.92, p < 0.001). The anxiety symptom cluster was significantly less responsive to treatment than other symptom clusters (t(6001) = -8.02, p < 0.001). These findings were replicated using data from the CARTBIND trial.InterpretationThere are distinct symptom clusters experienced by individuals with TRD that have a differential response to rTMS. Future work will determine whether differing rTMS treatment targets have distinct patterns of symptom cluster responses with the eventual goal of personalizing rTMS protocols based on an individual's clinical presentation.FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Brain Canada.

Project description:BackgroundTo examine the antidepressant efficacy and response predictors of R-DLPFC-LF rTMS for antidepressant-nonresponding BD.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind randomized sham-controlled trial for 54 (28 sham, 26 active) patients with antidepressant-nonresponding BD (baseline MADRS ≥ 20). Patients received 15 daily sessions of active or sham neuronavigated rTMS (Figure-of-8 coil, five 1 Hz 60 s 110% RMT trains). Outcome measures included depressive response (≥ 50% MADRS reduction, CGI ≤ 2) and remission (MADRS < 7, CGI = 1) rates, treatment emergent hypo/mania (YMRS), depressive and anxiety symptoms (HAM-A).Results48 patients (25 sham, 23 active) completed treatment, with 3 drop-outs each in active and sham groups. Active rTMS did not produce superior response or remission rates at endpoint or 6 or 12 weeks (ps > 0.05). There was no significant group * time interaction (ps > 0.05) in a multivariate ANOVA with MADRS, HAMA and YMRS as dependent variables. Exploratory analysis found MADRS improvement to be moderated by baseline anxiety (p = 0.02) and melancholia (p = 0.03) at week 3, and depressive onset at weeks 6 (p = 0.03) and 12 (p = 0.04). In subjects with below-mean anxiety (HAMA < 20.7, n = 24), MADRS improvement from active rTMS was superior to sham at week 3 (ITT, t = 2.49, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 1.05). No seizures were observed. Groups did not differ in treatment-emergent hypomania (p = 0.1).LimitationsLarger sample size might be needed to power subgroup analyses. Moderation analyses were exploratory. Single-blind design. Unblinding before follow-up assessments due to ethical reasons.Conclusions1-Hz 110% RMT (5 × 60 s trains) R-DLPFC-LF rTMS was not effective for antidepressant non-responding BD but may be further investigated at increased dosage and/or in BD patients with low anxiety. Trial registration CCRB Clinical Trials Registry, CUHK, CUHK_CCT00440. Registered 04 December 2014, https://www2.ccrb.cuhk.edu.hk/registry/public/279.

Project description:ImportanceRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are both recognized as effective treatments for depression when applied individually. However, it is unknown whether rTMS combined with tDCS has better efficacy in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of rTMS, tDCS, tDCS + rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS after 2 weeks of treatment in patients with MDD.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2021 to April 2023 at 3 hospitals in China (Kangning Hospital affiliated with Ningbo University, Lishui Second People's Hospital, and Taizhou Second People's Hospital). Adult patients (aged 18-65 years) who were diagnosed with major depressive disorder were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 interventions: active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS. Data analysis followed an intention-to-treat approach.InterventionPatients received a 2-week course of treatment. The tDCS was administered using a 2-mA direct current stimulator with electrodes placed on the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Each tDCS session lasted 20 minutes and was conducted 30 to 60 minutes prior to the rTMS session for a total of 10 sessions. The rTMS was delivered at a frequency of 10 Hz using a figure-8 coil placed on the left DLPFC, with each session consisting of 1600 pulses. Treatments were administered 5 times per week for 2 weeks. Sham treatments were performed with a pseudostimulation coil and emitted only sound.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in total score from baseline to week 2 on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24; score range: 0-52, with the highest score indicating more severe symptoms).ResultsA total of 240 participants (139 females [57.9%]; mean [SD] age, 32.50 [15.18] years) were included. As a primary outcome, patients who received active tDCS + active rTMS showed a significantly greater reduction in mean (SD) HDRS-24 total scores compared with patients in the other 3 groups (active tDCS + active rTMS: 18.33 [5.39], sham tDCS + active rTMS: 14.86 [5.59], active tDCS + sham rTMS: 9.21 [4.61], and sham tDCS + sham rTMS: 10.77 [5.67]; F3,236 = 35.79; η2 = 0.31 [95% CI, 0.21-0.39]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis trial found that tDCS + rTMS was a more effective and safe treatment option than either the tDCS or rTMS intervention alone for patients with MDD.Trial registrationChina Clinical Trial Registry Identifier ChiCTR2100052122.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and combining both treatments in a stepped care pathway for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in Ontario.MethodsA cost-utility analysis evaluated the lifetime costs and benefits to society of rTMS and ECT as first-line treatments for TRD using a Markov model, which simulates the costs and health benefits of patients over their lifetime. Health states included acute treatment, maintenance treatment, remission, and severe depression. Treatment efficacy and health utility data were extracted and synthesized from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses evaluating these techniques. Direct costing data were obtained from national and provincial costing databases. Indirect costs were derived from government records. Scenario, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the results.ResultsrTMS dominated ECT, as it was less costly and produced better health outcomes, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), in the base case scenario. rTMS patients gained an average of 0.96 additional QALYs (equivalent to approximately 1 year in perfect health) over their lifetime with costs that were $46,094 less than ECT. rTMS remained dominant in the majority of scenario and threshold analyses. However, results from scenarios in which the model's maximum lifetime allowance of rTMS treatment courses was substantially limited, the dominance of rTMS over ECT was attenuated. The scenario that showed the highest QALY gain (1.19) and the greatest cost-savings ($46,614) was when rTMS nonresponders switched to ECT.ConclusionFrom a societal perspective utilizing a lifetime horizon, rTMS is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for TRD relative to ECT, as it is less expensive and produces better health outcomes. The reduced side effect profile and greater patient acceptability of rTMS that allow it to be administered more times than ECT in a patient's lifetime may contribute to its cost-effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Factors associated with antidepressant responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in antidepressant-resistant depression.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Factors associated with antidepressant responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in antidepressant-resistant depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets