Christine A Conelea1, Noah S Philip2, Agustin G Yip3, Jennifer L Barnes3, Matthew J Niedzwiecki3, Benjamin D Greenberg2, Audrey R Tyrka3, Linda L Carpenter3. 1. Bradley Hospital/Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Electronic address: cconelea@umn.edu. 2. Butler Hospital/Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Butler Hospital/Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been shown to be safe and effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in the general adult population. Efficacy among older (≥60 years) patients, who have a greater burden of cognitive, physical, and functional impairment compared to their younger counterparts, remains unclear. The current study aimed to characterize antidepressant response to an acute course of TMS therapy among patients aged ≥60 years compared to those <60 years in naturalistic clinical practice settings. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected and pooled for adults with TRD (N =231; n =75 aged ≥60 years and n = 156 <60 years) who underwent an acute course of outpatient TMS therapy at two outpatient clinics. Self-report depression scales were administered at baseline and end of acute treatment. Change on continuous measures and categorical outcomes were compared across older vs. younger patients. RESULTS: Both age groups showed significant improvements in depression symptoms. Response and remission rates did not differ between groups. Age group was not a significant predictor of change in depression severity, nor of clinical response or remission, in a model controlling for other predictors (all p>.05). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include reliance on self-report clinical measures and variability in comorbidity and concurrent pharmacotherapy due to the naturalistic nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that effectiveness of TMS for TRD is not differentially modified by age. Based on these naturalistic data, age alone should not be considered a contraindication or poor prognostic indicator of the antidepressant efficacy of TMS.
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been shown to be safe and effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in the general adult population. Efficacy among older (≥60 years) patients, who have a greater burden of cognitive, physical, and functional impairment compared to their younger counterparts, remains unclear. The current study aimed to characterize antidepressant response to an acute course of TMS therapy among patients aged ≥60 years compared to those <60 years in naturalistic clinical practice settings. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected and pooled for adults with TRD (N =231; n =75 aged ≥60 years and n = 156 <60 years) who underwent an acute course of outpatient TMS therapy at two outpatient clinics. Self-report depression scales were administered at baseline and end of acute treatment. Change on continuous measures and categorical outcomes were compared across older vs. younger patients. RESULTS: Both age groups showed significant improvements in depression symptoms. Response and remission rates did not differ between groups. Age group was not a significant predictor of change in depression severity, nor of clinical response or remission, in a model controlling for other predictors (all p>.05). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include reliance on self-report clinical measures and variability in comorbidity and concurrent pharmacotherapy due to the naturalistic nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that effectiveness of TMS for TRD is not differentially modified by age. Based on these naturalistic data, age alone should not be considered a contraindication or poor prognostic indicator of the antidepressant efficacy of TMS.
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: Linda L Carpenter; Philip G Janicak; Scott T Aaronson; Terrence Boyadjis; David G Brock; Ian A Cook; David L Dunner; Karl Lanocha; H Brent Solvason; Mark A Demitrack Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Nathan Bakker; Saba Shahab; Peter Giacobbe; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Sidney H Kennedy; Jonathan Downar Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: K Ryan Connolly; Amanda Helmer; Mario A Cristancho; Pilar Cristancho; John P O'Reardon Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Alexander V Chervyakov; Andrey Yu Chernyavsky; Dmitry O Sinitsyn; Michael A Piradov Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Christian Knöchel; Gilberto Alves; Benedikt Friedrichs; Barbara Schneider; Anna Schmidt-Rechau; Sofia Wenzler; Angelina Schneider; David Prvulovic; André F Carvalho; Viola Oertel-Knöchel Journal: Curr Neuropharmacol Date: 2015 Impact factor: 7.363
Authors: Christine A Conelea; Noah S Philip; Augustin G Yip; Jennifer L Barnes; Matthew J Niedzwiecki; Benjamin D Greenberg; Audrey R Tyrka; Linda L Carpenter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Robrecht Dockx; Kathelijne Peremans; Lise Vlerick; Nick Van Laeken; Jimmy H Saunders; Ingeborgh Polis; Filip De Vos; Chris Baeken Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.240