Daniel M Blumberger1, Jerome J Maller1, Lauren Thomson1, Benoit H Mulsant1, Tarek K Rajji1, Missy Maher1, Patrick E Brown1, Jonathan Downar1, Fidel Vila-Rodriguez1, Paul B Fitzgerald1, Zafiris J Daskalakis1. 1. From the Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, and Campbell Family Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada (Blumberger, Thomson, Mulsant, Rajji, Maher, Daskalakis); the Monash Alfred Psychiatry research centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Maller, Fitzgerald); Cancer Care Ontario and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada (Brown); the Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada (Downar); and the Non-Invasive Neurostimulation Therapies laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (Vila-Rodriguez).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several factors may mitigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over sham rTMS in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These factors include unilateral stimulation (i.e., treatment of only the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), suboptimal methods of targeting the DLPFC and insufficient stimulation intensity (based on coil-to-cortex distance). METHODS: We recruited patients with TRD between the ages of 18 and 85 years from a university hospital, and participants were randomized to receive sequential bilateral rTMS (600 pulses at 1 Hz followed by 1500 pulses at 10 Hz), unilateral high-frequency left (HFL)-rTMS (2100 pulses at 10 Hz) or sham rTMS for 3 or 6 weeks depending on treatment response. Stimulation was targeted with MRI localization over the junction of the middle and anterior thirds of the middle frontal gyrus, using 120% of the coil-to-cortex adjusted motor threshold. Our primary outcome of interest was the remission rate. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients participated in this study. The remission rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group than the sham group. The remission rate in the HFL-rTMS group was intermediate and did not differ statistically from the rate in the 2 other groups. There were no significant differences in reduction of depression scores among the 3 groups. LIMITATIONS: The number of pulses used per session in the unilateral group was somewhat lower in our trial than in more recent trials, and the sham condition did not involve active stimulation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that sequential bilateral rTMS is superior to sham rTMS; however, adjusting for coil-to-cortex distance did not yield enhanced efficacy rates.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several factors may mitigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over sham rTMS in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These factors include unilateral stimulation (i.e., treatment of only the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), suboptimal methods of targeting the DLPFC and insufficient stimulation intensity (based on coil-to-cortex distance). METHODS: We recruited patients with TRD between the ages of 18 and 85 years from a university hospital, and participants were randomized to receive sequential bilateral rTMS (600 pulses at 1 Hz followed by 1500 pulses at 10 Hz), unilateral high-frequency left (HFL)-rTMS (2100 pulses at 10 Hz) or sham rTMS for 3 or 6 weeks depending on treatment response. Stimulation was targeted with MRI localization over the junction of the middle and anterior thirds of the middle frontal gyrus, using 120% of the coil-to-cortex adjusted motor threshold. Our primary outcome of interest was the remission rate. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients participated in this study. The remission rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group than the sham group. The remission rate in the HFL-rTMS group was intermediate and did not differ statistically from the rate in the 2 other groups. There were no significant differences in reduction of depression scores among the 3 groups. LIMITATIONS: The number of pulses used per session in the unilateral group was somewhat lower in our trial than in more recent trials, and the sham condition did not involve active stimulation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that sequential bilateral rTMS is superior to sham rTMS; however, adjusting for coil-to-cortex distance did not yield enhanced efficacy rates.
Authors: F A Kozel; Z Nahas; C deBrux; M Molloy; J P Lorberbaum; D Bohning; S C Risch; M S George Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.198
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: Julia Prasser; Martin Schecklmann; Timm B Poeppl; Elmar Frank; Peter M Kreuzer; Goeran Hajak; Rainer Rupprecht; Michael Landgrebe; Berthold Langguth Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: William K Silverstein; Yoshihiro Noda; Mera S Barr; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Tarek K Rajji; Paul B Fitzgerald; Jonathan Downar; Benoit H Mulsant; Simone Vigod; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 6.505
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: A Hasan; T Wobrock; B Guse; B Langguth; M Landgrebe; P Eichhammer; E Frank; J Cordes; W Wölwer; F Musso; G Winterer; W Gaebel; G Hajak; C Ohmann; P E Verde; M Rietschel; R Ahmed; W G Honer; P Dechent; B Malchow; M F U Castro; D Dwyer; C Cabral; P M Kreuzer; T B Poeppl; T Schneider-Axmann; P Falkai; N Koutsouleris Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Tyler S Kaster; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Yoshihiro Noda; Yuliya Knyahnytska; Jonathan Downar; Tarek K Rajji; Yechiel Levkovitz; Abraham Zangen; Meryl A Butters; Benoit H Mulsant; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Alisson Paulino Trevizol; Kyle W Goldberger; Benoit H Mulsant; Tarek K Rajji; Jonathan Downar; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Thomas Wobrock; Birgit Guse; Berthold Langguth; Michael Landgrebe; Peter Eichhammer; Elmar Frank; Joachim Cordes; Wolfgang Wölwer; Francesco Musso; Georg Winterer; Wolfgang Gaebel; Göran Hajak; Christian Ohmann; Pablo E Verde; Marcella Rietschel; Raees Ahmed; William G Honer; Dominic Dwyer; Farhad Ghaseminejad; Peter Dechent; Berend Malchow; Peter M Kreuzer; Tim B Poeppl; Thomas Schneider-Axmann; Peter Falkai; Alkomiet Hasan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Shan H Siddiqi; Stephan F Taylor; Danielle Cooke; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Mark S George; Michael D Fox Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Mehmet Utku Kucuker; Ammar G Almorsy; Ayse Irem Sonmez; Anna N Ligezka; Deniz Doruk Camsari; Charles P Lewis; Paul E Croarkin Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.169