Antidepressant efficacy of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in antidepressant-nonresponding bipolar depression: a single-blind randomized sham-controlled trial

More rTMS pulses or more sessions? The impact on treatment outcome for treatment resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Optimal rTMS parameters remain unclear, especially whether number of sessions or amount of pulses contribute more to treatment outcome. We hypothesize that treatment outcome depends on the number of sessions rather than on the amount of pulses.

METHODS

We searched databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on high-frequent (HF) or low-frequent (LF)-rTMS targeting the left or right DLPFC for TRD. Treatment efficacy was measured using standardized mean difference (SMD), calculated from pre- and post-treatment depression scores. Meta-regressions were used to explore linear associations between SMD and rTMS pulses, pulses/session and sessions for HF and LF-rTMS, separately for active and sham-rTMS. If these variables showed no linear association with SMD, we divided the data into quartiles and explored subgroup SMDs.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven RCTs were included: 67 studied HF-rTMS, eleven studied LF-rTMS, and nine studied both. No linear association was found between SMD and amount of pulses or pulses/session for HF and LF-rTMS. Subgroup analyses showed the largest SMDs for 1200-1500 HF-pulses/session and 360-450 LF-pulses/session. The number of sessions was significantly associated with SMD for active HF (β = 0.09, p < 0.05) and LF-rTMS (β = 0.06, p < 0.01). Thirty was the maximal number of sessions, in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

More rTMS sessions, but not more pulses, were associated with improved treatment outcome, in both HF and LF-rTMS. Our findings suggest that 1200-1500 HF-pulses/session and 360-450 LF-pulses/session are already sufficient, and that a treatment course should consist of least 30 sessions for higher chance of response.

Real-world retrospective study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment for bipolar and unipolar depression using TMS registry data in Tokyo

Despite the prevalence of empirical practice, evidence supporting the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating bipolar depression (BD) is sparse compared to that for unipolar depression. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a retrospective observational analysis using TMS registry data to compare the efficacy of rTMS treatment for BD and unipolar depression. Data from 20 patients diagnosed with unipolar and BD were retrospectively extracted from the TMS registry to ensure age and sex matching. The primary outcomes of this registry study were measured using the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Analysis did not reveal significant differences between the two groups in terms of depression severity, motor threshold, or stimulus intensity at baseline. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in absolute or relative changes in the total HAM-D21 and MADRS scores. Furthermore, the response and remission rates following rTMS treatment did not differ significantly between groups. The only adverse event reported in this study was scalp pain at the stimulation site; however, the incidence and severity were not significantly different between the groups. In conclusion, this retrospective study, using real-world TMS registry data, suggests that rTMS treatment for BD could be as effective as that for unipolar depression. These findings underscore the need for further validation in prospective randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes.

Comparing different non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for bipolar depression treatment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising treatment for bipolar depression. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials on NIBS for treating bipolar depression (INPLASY No: 202340019). Eighteen articles (N = 617) were eligible for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F3 plus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F4 (a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4; SMD = -1.18, 95%CIs = -1.66 to -0.69, N = 77), high-definition tDCS over F3 (HD-tDCS-F3; -1.17, -2.00 to -0.35, 25), high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-dTMS; -0.81, -1.62 to -0.001, 25), and high frequency repetitive TMS over F3 plus low frequency repetitive TMS over F4 (HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4; -0.77, -1.43 to -0.11, 38) significantly improved depressive symptoms compared to sham controls. Only a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4 (OR = 4.53, 95%CIs = 1.51-13.65) and HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4 (4.69, 1.02-21.56) showed higher response rates. No active NIBS interventions exhibited significant differences in dropout or side effect rates, compared with sham controls.

Real world transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: A multisite, naturalistic, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the U.S. FDA approved rTMS as a treatment against medication-resistant depression. However, real-world rTMS outcomes remain understudied. This study investigates how rTMS for depression is delivered in routine clinical practice in France, and measures its effectiveness as well as its moderators.

METHODS

Five centers provided retrospective data on patients who were treated with rTMS for treatment-resistant depression from January 2015 to December 2020. Patients were assessed twice using a hetero-questionnaire, with baseline and immediate post-treatment assessments. We conducted univariate analyses to study which factors were significantly associated with rTMS effectiveness. We then included age, gender, and significant factors in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

We collected data from 435 patients with a mean age of 51.27 (14.91): 66 % were female, and 26 % suffered from bipolar depression. Stimulation was delivered using four different stimulation parameters: 1 Hz (7 % of the individuals), 10 Hz (43 %), 20 Hz (12 %), and 50 Hz (intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation, iTBS) (38 %). The mean improvement of depressive symptoms was 33 % (p < 0.001, effect-size: 0.79). Response and remission rates were of 31 % and 22.8 %, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, improvement in depressive symptoms was associated with higher baseline symptoms.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the largest studies that investigates, with careful clinician-rated scales by trained psychiatrists, the effect of rTMS in naturalistic settings. Repetitive TMS appears to be effective in routine clinical practice, although its efficacy could be improved by analyzing predictors of response, as well as personalized targeting of specific brain areas.

Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder in Comparison to the Treatment of Unipolar Depression in a Naturalistic Setting

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective in the treatment of depression. However, for the subset of patients with bipolar disorder, less data is available and overall strength of evidence is weaker than for its use in unipolar depression. A cohort of 505 patients (of which 46 had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder) with depression who were treated with rTMS were analyzed retrospectively with regards to their response to several weeks of treatment. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) was assessed as main outcome. Unipolar and bipolar patients with depression did not differ significantly in baseline demographic variables or severity of depression. Both groups did not differ significantly in their response to treatment as indicated by absolute and relative changes in the HDRS and response and remission rates. On HDRS subitem-analysis, bipolar patients showed superior amelioration of the symptom “paranoid symptoms” in a statistically significant manner. In conclusion, depressed patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder benefit from rTMS in a similar fashion as patients with unipolar depression in a naturalistic setting. rTMS might be more effective in reducing paranoia in bipolar than in unipolar patients.