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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hejzlar, Martin, Novak, Tomas, Bares, Martin
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