Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to maintain treatment response to electroconvulsive therapy in depression: a case series

Real-world case series of maintenance theta burst stimulation therapy following response to acute theta burst stimulation therapy for difficult-to-treat depression

OBJECTIVE

Treatment and management for difficult-to-treat depression are challenging, especially in a subset of patients who are at high risk for relapse and recurrence. The conditions that represent this subset are recurrent depressive disorder (RDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). In this context, we aimed to examine the effectiveness of maintenance transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on a real-world clinical basis by retrospectively extracting data from the TMS registry data in Tokyo, Japan.

METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with treatment-resistant RDD and BD who received maintenance intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) weekly after successful treatment with acute iTBS between March 2020 and October 2023 were extracted from the registry.

RESULTS

All patients (21 cases: 10 cases with RDD and 11 cases with BD) could sustain response, and 19 of them further maintained remission. In this study, maintenance iTBS did not exacerbate depressive symptoms in any of the cases, but may rather have the effect of stabilizing the mental condition and preventing recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series is of great clinical significance because it is the first study to report on the effectiveness of maintenance iTBS for RDD and BD, with a follow-up of more than 2 years. Further validation with a randomized controlled trial design with a larger sample size is warranted.

Role of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Ketamine Infusion, and Deep Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Case Report

Background and Objectives: Options for treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBPD) are limited. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has shown efficacy in TRBPD. However, the cognitive deficits and memory concerns associated with ECT are problematic for a significant number of patients. It remains unclear what the next step is for patients with TRBPD who fail ECT. Materials and Methods: In this case report, we present a patient with TRBPD who sequentially received 12 sessions of brief-pulse right unilateral ECT, 22 sessions of ketamine infusion at 0.5-0.75 mg/kg for 40 min, and 39 sessions of deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS). Results: The patient had some benefit from ECT, but declined continuation of ECT due to memory concerns. The patient tolerated ketamine infusion well but had limited benefit. However, the patient responded well to acute treatment with dTMS and maintained relative stability for more than 2 years. Conclusions: This case suggests that patients with TRBPD who fail ECT and/or ketamine infusion might benefit from dTMS.

Effects of the combination of neurostimulation techniques in patients with mental disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

despite years of development, response to neurostimulation remains partial and variable. Combining techniques could improve clinical efficacy and tolerance.

OBJECTIVE

to examine the literature on the effects of combining several neurostimulation techniques in patients with mental disorders.

METHODS

this systematic review follows the PRISMA guidelines RESULTS: 23 studies were included. The most studied combination was electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) along with another neurostimulation technique in depression. The RCTs that showed a significant effect targeted the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, before ECT. Combining neurostimulation techniques is a promising field of research.

Systematic review of preservation TMS that includes continuation, maintenance, relapse-prevention, and rescue TMS

BACKGROUND

A dearth of evidence-based information exists to guide the delivery of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) after a successful acute course of treatment for Major Depressive Disorder.

METHODS

To provide guidance for clinicians, existing literature focused on "preservation TMS" was systematically reviewed and synthesized. Preservation TMS was defined as TMS used to sustain a clinical response after a successful acute course of treatment and included reports using the terms maintenance, continuation, relapse prevention, or rescue TMS. The review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework and reported following PRISMA guidelines. Data were abstracted by two authors and discrepancies were resolved by a third author. Primary outcome measures focused on clinical efficacy. The evaluated studies were graded using the Levels of Evidence criteria published by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

The search included 536 abstracts and 16 additional papers, from which 63 full articles were screened. Data were abstracted from 30 qualifying sources (N=1,494) including 4 randomized controlled trials (one sham controlled), 14 open trials, and 12 case series. Overall, the quality of existing literature was low regarding efficacy but provided clear support for effectiveness and safety across a range of preservation TMS protocols based on mostly uncontrolled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing literature suggests that preservation TMS protocols significantly vary and are mostly supported by open trials and case series. Due to a lack of effective alternatives, preservation TMS will likely be required for certain patients who respond to acute TMS therapy. More studies of preservation TMS are critically needed.

A retrospective analysis of bipolar depression treated with transcranial magnetic stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options are limited for patients with bipolar depression. Antidepressants added to mood stabilizers even carry risks of precipitating mixed/manic episodes. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may provide a safe and effective option for these patients.

METHODS

Database analysis of the TMS Service at Sheppard Pratt Health System identified patients with bipolar disorder type I (BD1) or II (BD2) in a pure depressive phase at initiation of TMS. Records were reviewed for response and remission rates based on MADRS scores, time to effect, and adverse events, notably treatment-emergent affective switching. All had failed at least two prior treatments for depression, were currently on at least one mood stabilizer and off antidepressants. Stimulation parameters targeted left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: 120% motor threshold, 10 pulses per second (pps) × 4s, intertrain interval (ITI) 26s, 75 trains (37.5 min/session) for 3,000 pps total, 5 sessions/week for 30 total treatments, or until remission criteria were met.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients with BD were identified, representing 15% of the total TMS population. 77% of those who completed a course of TMS met response criteria, and 41% of subjects who completed at least 25 treatments met remission criteria. Subjects with BD1 were more likely to respond, remit, or suffer an adverse event than those with BD2. No patient met clinical criteria for a manic/mixed episode, but four (10%) discontinued due to concerns of activation.

CONCLUSIONS

TMS is effective in the bipolar depressed population where episode focused intervention can be specifically offered. Risk of psychomotor agitation must be closely monitored.

Augmentative Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) in the Acute Treatment of Poor Responder Depressed Patients: A Comparison Study Between High and Low Frequency Stimulation

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.

Methods:

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, 1 Hz, 110% MT, 900 stimuli/day; (3) (n = 13) left DLPFC, 10 Hz, 80% MT, 750 stimuli/day.

Results:

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.

Conclusions:

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.

Usefulness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a maintenance treatment in patients with major depression

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), venlafaxine or a combination of both treatments as a maintenance treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

METHODS

In a three-arm open-label study, 66 patients, including 45 remitters, who responded to rTMS (n = 25), venlafaxine (n = 22), or a combination of both treatments (n = 19) continued to receive the treatment that led to a response as a maintenance treatment over 12 months. Maintenance rTMS was administered twice per week for 1 month, once per week for 2 months, and once every 2 weeks for 9 months. Venlafaxine was maintained at the dose that induced a clinical response (150 or 225 mg/day).

RESULTS

After the 12-month follow-up, the rates of remitters (HDRS < 8) were not different between the three groups (χ²=1.25; P = .3). The rates of patients who not relapsed (HDRS < 15) were not different between groups (χ²=0.33; P = .8): 40.0% in the rTMS group, 45.1% in the venlafaxine group and 36.9% in the combination group.

CONCLUSIONS

The three maintenance approaches exhibited similar efficacies in relapse prevention and the maintenance of remission in patients with TRD.

Clustered repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the prevention of depressive relapse/recurrence: a randomized controlled trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may have the potential to prevent depressive relapse. This assessor-blinded, randomized controlled study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS as a mono- and combination therapy in the prevention of depressive relapse/recurrence. A total of 281 depressed patients who had achieved stable full or partial remission on a 6-month antidepressant (ADP) run-in treatment were randomly assigned to an rTMS (n = 91), ADP (n = 108), or combined (rTMS + ADP, n = 82) treatment group for 12 months. Monthly clustered rTMS was conducted in 5-10 sessions over a 3-5-day period. Maintenance outcomes were assessed using time to relapse/recurrence and relapse/recurrence rate. Overall, 71.2% (200/281) of the participants completed the treatment per the protocol. rTMS + ADP and rTMS significantly reduced the risk of relapse/recurrence compared with ADP (P = 0.000), with hazard ratios of 0.297 and 0.466, respectively. Both rTMS-containing regimens produced significantly lower relapse/recurrence rates than ADP (15.9% and 24.2% vs. 44.4%, P < 0.001). In the relapsed/recurrent subgroup, first-episode depressed, rTMS-treated patients had a markedly lower relapse/recurrence rate than ADP-treated patients. Five patients on the ADP-containing regimens, but none on rTMS alone, developed acute mania. The rTMS-containing regimens had considerably more certain side effects than did the ADP group. We concluded that TMS, whether as a mono- or additional therapy, is superior to antidepressants in preventing depressive relapse/recurrence, particularly in first-episode depressed patients. The treatment does not increase the risk of manic switch, but may increase the risk of certain side effects.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) - beyond depression

INTRODUCTION

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) utilizes different H-coils to study and treat a variety of psychiatric and neurological conditions with identifiable brain targets. The availability of this technology is dramatically changing the practice of psychiatry and neurology as it provides a safe and effective way to treat even drug-resistant patients. However, up until now, no effort was made to summarize the different types of H-coils that are available, and the conditions for which they were tested. Areas covered: Here we assembled all peer reviewed publication that used one of the H-coils, together with illustrations of the effective field they generate within the brain. Currently, the technology has FDA clearance for depression and European clearance for additional disorders, and multi-center trials are exploring its safety and effectiveness for OCD, PTSD, bipolar depression and nicotine addiction. Expert commentary: Taken together with positive results in smaller scale experiments, dTMS coils represent a non-invasive way to manipulate pathological activity in different brain structures and circuits. Advances in stimulation and imaging methods can now lead to efficacious and logical treatments. This should reduce the stigma associated with mental disorders, and improve access to psychiatric treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Repeated Courses of rTMS Treatment in Patients with Chronic Subjective Tinnitus

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promising effects in the treatment of chronic subjective tinnitus. However, little is known about maintenance treatment in order to achieve long-lasting improvements.

OBJECTIVE

This study addresses the questions whether the repeated application of rTMS treatment can contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of treatment effects and if so in which cases repetitive treatment courses are beneficial.

METHODS

55 patients with chronic tinnitus were treated with two rTMS treatment courses with ten treatment sessions each. The mean intertreatment interval was 20.65 ± 18.56 months. Tinnitus severity was assessed before and after each treatment course.

RESULTS

Both treatments were well tolerated and caused significant improvement of tinnitus severity. The main predictor for the outcome of the second treatment was the development of tinnitus distress in the phase between both treatment courses: the more patients worsened in this interval, the more they improved during the second treatment course.

CONCLUSION

Repeated application of rTMS seems to be useful in tinnitus management and should preferentially be offered to patients who experience a worsening of their tinnitus during the intertreatment interval, irrespective of their response to the first treatment course.