Laura E Leggett1, Lesley J J Soril1, Stephanie Coward1, Diane L Lorenzetti2, Gail MacKean1, Fiona M Clement1. 1. Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between 30% and 60% of individuals with major depressive disorder will have treatment-resistant depression (TRD): depression that does not subside with pharmaceutical treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an emerging treatment for TRD. OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy and optimal protocol for rTMS among adults and youth with TRD. DATA SOURCES: Two systematic reviews were conducted: one to determine the efficacy of rTMS for adults with TRD and another to determine the effectiveness of rTMS for youth with TRD. For adults, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched from inception until January 10, 2014 with no language restrictions. Terms aimed at capturing the target diagnosis, such as depression and depressive disorder, were combined with terms describing the technology, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and rTMS. Results were limited to studies involving human participants and designed as a randomized controlled trial. For youth, the search was altered to include youth only (aged 13-25 years) and all study designs. When possible, meta-analysis of response and remission rates was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Seventy-three articles were included in this review: 70 on adult and 3 on youth populations. RESULTS: Meta-analysis comparing rTMS and sham in adults found statistically significant results favoring rTMS for response (RR: 2.35 [95% CI, 1.70-3.25]) and remission (RR: 2.24 [95% CI, 1.53-3.27]). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing high- and low-frequency, unilateral and bilateral, low- and high-intensity rTMS or rTMS and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While meta-analysis of results from the youth literature was not possible, the limited evidence base suggests that rTMS may be effective for treating TRD in youth. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available on the use of rTMS for adults with TRD indicates that rTMS is approximately twice as effective as a sham procedure, although the optimal rTMS protocol remains unclear. Evidence also indicates that rTMS is as effective as ECT and appears promising as a treatment for youth with TRD; however, the evidence base is underdeveloped.
BACKGROUND: Between 30% and 60% of individuals with major depressive disorder will have treatment-resistant depression (TRD): depression that does not subside with pharmaceutical treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an emerging treatment for TRD. OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy and optimal protocol for rTMS among adults and youth with TRD. DATA SOURCES: Two systematic reviews were conducted: one to determine the efficacy of rTMS for adults with TRD and another to determine the effectiveness of rTMS for youth with TRD. For adults, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched from inception until January 10, 2014 with no language restrictions. Terms aimed at capturing the target diagnosis, such as depression and depressive disorder, were combined with terms describing the technology, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and rTMS. Results were limited to studies involving humanparticipants and designed as a randomized controlled trial. For youth, the search was altered to include youth only (aged 13-25 years) and all study designs. When possible, meta-analysis of response and remission rates was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Seventy-three articles were included in this review: 70 on adult and 3 on youth populations. RESULTS: Meta-analysis comparing rTMS and sham in adults found statistically significant results favoring rTMS for response (RR: 2.35 [95% CI, 1.70-3.25]) and remission (RR: 2.24 [95% CI, 1.53-3.27]). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing high- and low-frequency, unilateral and bilateral, low- and high-intensity rTMS or rTMS and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While meta-analysis of results from the youth literature was not possible, the limited evidence base suggests that rTMS may be effective for treating TRD in youth. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available on the use of rTMS for adults with TRD indicates that rTMS is approximately twice as effective as a sham procedure, although the optimal rTMS protocol remains unclear. Evidence also indicates that rTMS is as effective as ECT and appears promising as a treatment for youth with TRD; however, the evidence base is underdeveloped.
Authors: Paul B Fitzgerald; Jessica Benitez; Anthony de Castella; Z Jeff Daskalakis; Timothy L Brown; Jayashri Kulkarni Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: F Padberg; P Zwanzger; H Thoma; N Kathmann; C Haag; B D Greenberg; H Hampel; H J Möller Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 1999-11-29 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Moacyr Alexandro Rosa; Wagner Farid Gattaz; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Felipe Fregni; Marina Odebrecht Rosa; Demetrio Ortega Rumi; Martin Myczkowski; Maria Fernanda Silva; Carlos Mansur; Sergio Paulo Rigonatti; Manuel Jacobsen Teixeira; Marco Antonio Marcolin Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2006-08-21 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Paul B Fitzgerald; Kate E Hoy; Ajeet Singh; Ranil Gunewardene; Christopher Slack; Samir Ibrahim; Phillip J Hall; Z Jeff Daskalakis Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Roumen V Milev; Peter Giacobbe; Sidney H Kennedy; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Jonathan Downar; Mandana Modirrousta; Simon Patry; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Raymond W Lam; Glenda M MacQueen; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Marom Bikson; Colleen A Hanlon; Adam J Woods; Bernadette T Gillick; Leigh Charvet; Claus Lamm; Graziella Madeo; Adrienn Holczer; Jorge Almeida; Andrea Antal; Mohammad Reza Ay; Chris Baeken; Daniel M Blumberger; Salvatore Campanella; Joan A Camprodon; Lasse Christiansen; Colleen Loo; Jennifer T Crinion; Paul Fitzgerald; Luigi Gallimberti; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Iman Ghodratitoostani; Roland H Grabner; Gesa Hartwigsen; Akimasa Hirata; Adam Kirton; Helena Knotkova; Evgeny Krupitsky; Paola Marangolo; Ester M Nakamura-Palacios; Weronika Potok; Samir K Praharaj; Christian C Ruff; Gottfried Schlaug; Hartwig R Siebner; Charlotte J Stagg; Axel Thielscher; Nicole Wenderoth; Ti-Fei Yuan; Xiaochu Zhang; Hamed Ekhtiari Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Salvatore Campanella; Kemal Arikan; Claudio Babiloni; Michela Balconi; Maurizio Bertollo; Viviana Betti; Luigi Bianchi; Martin Brunovsky; Carla Buttinelli; Silvia Comani; Giorgio Di Lorenzo; Daniel Dumalin; Carles Escera; Andreas Fallgatter; Derek Fisher; Giulia Maria Giordano; Bahar Guntekin; Claudio Imperatori; Ryouhei Ishii; Hendrik Kajosch; Michael Kiang; Eduardo López-Caneda; Pascal Missonnier; Armida Mucci; Sebastian Olbrich; Georges Otte; Andrea Perrottelli; Alessandra Pizzuti; Diego Pinal; Dean Salisbury; Yingying Tang; Paolo Tisei; Jijun Wang; Istvan Winkler; Jiajin Yuan; Oliver Pogarell Journal: Clin EEG Neurosci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: Bethan Dalton; Savani Bartholdy; Jessica McClelland; Maria Kekic; Samantha J Rennalls; Jessica Werthmann; Ben Carter; Owen G O'Daly; Iain C Campbell; Anthony S David; Danielle Glennon; Nikola Kern; Ulrike Schmidt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 2.692