Cargando…
Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies
BACKGROUND: There are no head-to-head studies comparing the antidepressant effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This pooled analysis compared indirectly the antidepressant efficacy and acceptability of rTMS, tDCS, and the...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8169053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34093015 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S303226 |
_version_ | 1783701981266706432 |
---|---|
author | Hejzlar, Martin Novak, Tomas Bares, Martin |
author_facet | Hejzlar, Martin Novak, Tomas Bares, Martin |
author_sort | Hejzlar, Martin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There are no head-to-head studies comparing the antidepressant effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This pooled analysis compared indirectly the antidepressant efficacy and acceptability of rTMS, tDCS, and the antidepressant venlafaxine (VNF) extended-release. METHODS: The analysis (n=117, both patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and non-TRD were included) examined pooled data from two 4-week, single-centered, two-armed, double-blind, randomized studies (EUDRACT n. 2005-000826-22 and EUDRACT n. 2015-001639-19). The antidepressant efficacy of right-sided low-frequency rTMS (n=29) vs VNF (n=31) and left-sided anodal tDCS (n=29) vs VNF (n=28) was evaluated. The primary outcome was a change in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score from baseline to the treatment endpoint at week 4. The response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in the MADRS score and remission as the MADRS score ≤10 points, both were calculated for the primary treatment endpoint at week 4. RESULTS: Mean change in total MADRS scores from baseline to week 4 was 7.0 (95% CI, 4.8–9.1) points in the rTMS group, 7.6 (95% CI, 5.5–9.8) in the tDCS group, and 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4–10.4) among patients in the VNF group, a non-significant difference (F(2111)=0.62, p=0.54). Similarly, neither the response rates nor remission rates for rTMS (response 31%; remission 17%), tDCS (24%, 17%), or VNF (41%; 27%) significantly differed among treatment groups (χ(2)=2.59, p=0.28; χ(2)=1.66, p=0.44). Twenty patients (17%) dropped out of the studies in a similar proportion across groups (rTMS 3/29, tDCS 6/29, VNF 11/59, χ(2)=1.41, p=0.52). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis found a comparable efficacy and acceptability in all three treatment modalities (rTMS, tDCS, and VNF) and clinical relevance for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8169053 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81690532021-06-03 Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies Hejzlar, Martin Novak, Tomas Bares, Martin Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Original Research BACKGROUND: There are no head-to-head studies comparing the antidepressant effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This pooled analysis compared indirectly the antidepressant efficacy and acceptability of rTMS, tDCS, and the antidepressant venlafaxine (VNF) extended-release. METHODS: The analysis (n=117, both patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and non-TRD were included) examined pooled data from two 4-week, single-centered, two-armed, double-blind, randomized studies (EUDRACT n. 2005-000826-22 and EUDRACT n. 2015-001639-19). The antidepressant efficacy of right-sided low-frequency rTMS (n=29) vs VNF (n=31) and left-sided anodal tDCS (n=29) vs VNF (n=28) was evaluated. The primary outcome was a change in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score from baseline to the treatment endpoint at week 4. The response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in the MADRS score and remission as the MADRS score ≤10 points, both were calculated for the primary treatment endpoint at week 4. RESULTS: Mean change in total MADRS scores from baseline to week 4 was 7.0 (95% CI, 4.8–9.1) points in the rTMS group, 7.6 (95% CI, 5.5–9.8) in the tDCS group, and 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4–10.4) among patients in the VNF group, a non-significant difference (F(2111)=0.62, p=0.54). Similarly, neither the response rates nor remission rates for rTMS (response 31%; remission 17%), tDCS (24%, 17%), or VNF (41%; 27%) significantly differed among treatment groups (χ(2)=2.59, p=0.28; χ(2)=1.66, p=0.44). Twenty patients (17%) dropped out of the studies in a similar proportion across groups (rTMS 3/29, tDCS 6/29, VNF 11/59, χ(2)=1.41, p=0.52). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis found a comparable efficacy and acceptability in all three treatment modalities (rTMS, tDCS, and VNF) and clinical relevance for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder. Dove 2021-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8169053/ /pubmed/34093015 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S303226 Text en © 2021 Hejzlar et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Hejzlar, Martin Novak, Tomas Bares, Martin Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title | Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title_full | Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title_fullStr | Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title_short | Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies |
title_sort | neurostimulation methods in the treatment of depression: a comparison of rtms, tdcs, and venlafaxine using a pooled analysis of two studies |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8169053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34093015 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S303226 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hejzlarmartin neurostimulationmethodsinthetreatmentofdepressionacomparisonofrtmstdcsandvenlafaxineusingapooledanalysisoftwostudies AT novaktomas neurostimulationmethodsinthetreatmentofdepressionacomparisonofrtmstdcsandvenlafaxineusingapooledanalysisoftwostudies AT baresmartin neurostimulationmethodsinthetreatmentofdepressionacomparisonofrtmstdcsandvenlafaxineusingapooledanalysisoftwostudies |