Tyler S Kaster1, Jonathan Downar1, Fidel Vila-Rodriguez1, Kevin E Thorpe1, Kfir Feffer1, Yoshihiro Noda1, Peter Giacobbe1, Yuliya Knyahnytska1, Sidney H Kennedy1, Raymond W Lam1, Zafiris J Daskalakis1, Daniel M Blumberger1. 1. The Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (Kaster, Knyahnytska, Daskalakis, Blumberger); the Department of Psychiatry (Kaster, Downar, Giacobbe, Kennedy, Daskalakis, Blumberger), the Institute of Medical Science (Downar, Giacobbe, Kennedy, Daskalakis, Blumberger), and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Thorpe), University of Toronto, Toronto; the MRI-Guided rTMS Clinic, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto (Downar); the Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto (Downar, Kennedy); the Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Vila-Rodriguez, Lam); the Non-Invasive Neurostimulation Therapies Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Vila-Rodriguez); the Shalvata Mental Health Center, Hod-Hasharon, Israel, and the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Feffer); the Department of Neuropsychiatry, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo (Noda); the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto (Giacobbe); and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Saint Michael's Hospital, Toronto (Kennedy).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective treatment for refractory major depressive disorder, yet no studies have characterized trajectories of rTMS response. The aim of this study was to characterize response trajectories for patients with major depression undergoing left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex rTMS and to determine associated baseline clinical characteristics. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized noninferiority trial (N=388) comparing conventional 10-Hz rTMS and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTMS. Participants were adult outpatients who had a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder, had a score ≥18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and did not respond to one to three adequate antidepressant trials. Treatment was either conventional 10-Hz rTMS or iTBS rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 5 days/week over 4-6 weeks (20-30 sessions). Group-based trajectory modeling was applied to identify HAM-D response trajectories, and regression techniques were used to identify associated characteristics. RESULTS: Four trajectories were identified: nonresponse (N=43, 11%); rapid response (N=73, 19%); higher baseline symptoms, linear response (N=118, 30%); and lower baseline symptoms, linear response (N=154, 40%). Significant differences in response and remission rates between trajectories were detectable by week 1. There was no association between treatment protocol and response trajectory. Higher baseline scores on the HAM-D and the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) were associated with the nonresponse trajectory, and older age, lower QIDS-SR score, and lack of benzodiazepine use were associated with the rapid response trajectory. CONCLUSIONS:Major depression shows distinct response trajectories to rTMS, which are associated with baseline clinical characteristics but not treatment protocol. These response trajectories with differential response to rTMS raise the possibility of developing individualized treatment protocols.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective treatment for refractory major depressive disorder, yet no studies have characterized trajectories of rTMS response. The aim of this study was to characterize response trajectories for patients with major depression undergoing left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex rTMS and to determine associated baseline clinical characteristics. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized noninferiority trial (N=388) comparing conventional 10-Hz rTMS and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTMS. Participants were adult outpatients who had a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder, had a score ≥18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and did not respond to one to three adequate antidepressant trials. Treatment was either conventional 10-Hz rTMS or iTBS rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 5 days/week over 4-6 weeks (20-30 sessions). Group-based trajectory modeling was applied to identify HAM-D response trajectories, and regression techniques were used to identify associated characteristics. RESULTS: Four trajectories were identified: nonresponse (N=43, 11%); rapid response (N=73, 19%); higher baseline symptoms, linear response (N=118, 30%); and lower baseline symptoms, linear response (N=154, 40%). Significant differences in response and remission rates between trajectories were detectable by week 1. There was no association between treatment protocol and response trajectory. Higher baseline scores on the HAM-D and the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) were associated with the nonresponse trajectory, and older age, lower QIDS-SR score, and lack of benzodiazepine use were associated with the rapid response trajectory. CONCLUSIONS:Major depression shows distinct response trajectories to rTMS, which are associated with baseline clinical characteristics but not treatment protocol. These response trajectories with differential response to rTMS raise the possibility of developing individualized treatment protocols.
Authors: Jennifer G. Levitt; Guldamla Kalender; Joseph O’Neill; Joel P. Diaz; Ian A. Cook; Nathaniel Ginder; David Krantz; Michael J. Minzenberg; Nikita Vince-Cruz; Lydia D. Nguyen; Jeffry R. Alger; Andrew F. Leuchter Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Stephan A Goerigk; Frank Padberg; Markus Bühner; Nina Sarubin; Tyler S Kaster; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger; Lucas Borrione; Lais B Razza; Andre R Brunoni Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Lindsay M Oberman; Shannon Exley; Noah S Philip; Shan H Siddiqi; Maheen M Adamson; David L Brody Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2020 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Chris Baeken; Anna-Katharine Brem; Martijn Arns; Andre R Brunoni; Igor Filipčić; Ana Ganho-Ávila; Berthold Langguth; Frank Padberg; Emmanuel Poulet; Fady Rachid; Alexander T Sack; Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt; Djamila Bennabi Journal: Curr Opin Psychiatry Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Alisson P Trevizol; Jonathan Downar; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Kevin E Thorpe; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: M Deppe; M Abdelnaim; T Hebel; P M Kreuzer; T B Poeppl; B Langguth; M Schecklmann Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 5.270