Davide Cappon1, Tim den Boer2, Caleb Jordan3, Wanting Yu2, Eran Metzger4, Alvaro Pascual-Leone5. 1. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Deanna and Sidney Wolk Center for Memory Health, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: davidebaloscappon@hsl.harvard.edu. 2. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Deanna and Sidney Wolk Center for Memory Health, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Deanna and Sidney Wolk Center for Memory Health, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Guttmann Brain Health Institut, Guttmann Institut, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of treatment-resistant geriatric depression (GD) highlights the need for treatments that preserve cognitive functions and recognize polypharmacy in elderly, yet effectively reduce symptom burden. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a proven intervention for treatment-resistant depression in younger adults but the efficacy of TMS to treat depressed older adults is still unclear. This review provides an updated view on the efficacy of TMS treatment for GD, discusses methodological differences between trials in TMS application, and explores avenues for optimization of TMS treatment in the context of the ageing brain. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify published literature on the antidepressant efficacy of TMS for GD. Databases PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched for English language articles in peer-reviewed journals in March 2021. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (total n = 260, active n = 148, control n = 112) and seven uncontrolled trials (total n = 160) were included. Overall, we found substantial variability in the clinical response, ranging from 6.7% to 54.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature highlights large heterogeneity among studies both in terms of the employed TMS dosage and the observed clinical efficacy. This highlights the need for optimizing TMS dosage by recognizing the unique clinical features of GD. We showcase a set of novel approaches for the optimization of the TMS protocol for depression and discuss the possibility for a standardized TMS protocol tailored for the treatment of GD.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of treatment-resistant geriatric depression (GD) highlights the need for treatments that preserve cognitive functions and recognize polypharmacy in elderly, yet effectively reduce symptom burden. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a proven intervention for treatment-resistant depression in younger adults but the efficacy of TMS to treat depressed older adults is still unclear. This review provides an updated view on the efficacy of TMS treatment for GD, discusses methodological differences between trials in TMS application, and explores avenues for optimization of TMS treatment in the context of the ageing brain. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify published literature on the antidepressant efficacy of TMS for GD. Databases PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched for English language articles in peer-reviewed journals in March 2021. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (total n = 260, active n = 148, control n = 112) and seven uncontrolled trials (total n = 160) were included. Overall, we found substantial variability in the clinical response, ranging from 6.7% to 54.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature highlights large heterogeneity among studies both in terms of the employed TMS dosage and the observed clinical efficacy. This highlights the need for optimizing TMS dosage by recognizing the unique clinical features of GD. We showcase a set of novel approaches for the optimization of the TMS protocol for depression and discuss the possibility for a standardized TMS protocol tailored for the treatment of GD.
Authors: C J Honey; O Sporns; L Cammoun; X Gigandet; J P Thiran; R Meuli; P Hagmann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Natalia Olchanski; Michelle McInnis Myers; Marilyn Halseth; Philip L Cyr; Lindsay Bockstedt; Thomas F Goss; Robert H Howland Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Daniel M Blumberger; Jerome J Maller; Lauren Thomson; Benoit H Mulsant; Tarek K Rajji; Missy Maher; Patrick E Brown; Jonathan Downar; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Paul B Fitzgerald; Zafiris J Daskalakis Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Tim Wagner; Uri Eden; Felipe Fregni; Antoni Valero-Cabre; Ciro Ramos-Estebanez; Valerie Pronio-Stelluto; Alan Grodzinsky; Markus Zahn; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Lawrence G Appelbaum; Mohammad Ali Shenasa; Louise Stolz; Zafiris Daskalakis Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Daniel M Blumberger; Benoit H Mulsant; Kevin E Thorpe; Shawn M McClintock; Gerasimos N Konstantinou; Hyewon H Lee; Sean M Nestor; Yoshihiro Noda; Tarek K Rajji; Alisson P Trevizol; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Jonathan Downar Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 25.911
Authors: Ying Tang; Han Chen; Yi Zhou; Ming-Liang Tan; Shuang-Long Xiong; Yan Li; Xiao-Hui Ji; Yong-Sheng Li Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 6.244