Cargando…

Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression

(1) Background: While the therapeutic efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) is well established, less is known about the technique’s efficacy for treating comorbid anxiety. (2) Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from randomized controlled tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pell, Gaby S., Harmelech, Tal, Zibman, Sam, Roth, Yiftach, Tendler, Aron, Zangen, Abraham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8879826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207288
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11041015
_version_ 1784659003892039680
author Pell, Gaby S.
Harmelech, Tal
Zibman, Sam
Roth, Yiftach
Tendler, Aron
Zangen, Abraham
author_facet Pell, Gaby S.
Harmelech, Tal
Zibman, Sam
Roth, Yiftach
Tendler, Aron
Zangen, Abraham
author_sort Pell, Gaby S.
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: While the therapeutic efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) is well established, less is known about the technique’s efficacy for treating comorbid anxiety. (2) Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for MDD treatment. The primary endpoint was the difference relative to sham treatment following 4 weeks of stimulation. The effect size was compared to literature values for superficial TMS and medication treatments. (3) Results: In the pivotal RCT, active Deep TMS compared with sham treatment showed significantly larger improvements in anxiety score (effect size = 0.34, p = 0.03 (FDR)) which were sustained until 16 weeks (effect size = 0.35, p = 0.04). The pooled effect size between all the RCTs was 0.55, which compares favorably to alternative treatments. A direct comparison to Figure-8 Coil treatment indicated that treatment with the H1 Coil was significantly more effective (p = 0.042). In contrast to previously reported studies using superficial TMS and medication for which anxiety has been shown to be a negative predictor of effectiveness, higher baseline anxiety was found to be predictive of successful outcome for the H1-Coil treatment. (4) Conclusions: Deep TMS is effective in treating comorbid anxiety in MDD and, unlike alternative treatments, the outcome does not appear to be adversely affected by high baseline anxiety levels.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8879826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88798262022-02-26 Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression Pell, Gaby S. Harmelech, Tal Zibman, Sam Roth, Yiftach Tendler, Aron Zangen, Abraham J Clin Med Article (1) Background: While the therapeutic efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) is well established, less is known about the technique’s efficacy for treating comorbid anxiety. (2) Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for MDD treatment. The primary endpoint was the difference relative to sham treatment following 4 weeks of stimulation. The effect size was compared to literature values for superficial TMS and medication treatments. (3) Results: In the pivotal RCT, active Deep TMS compared with sham treatment showed significantly larger improvements in anxiety score (effect size = 0.34, p = 0.03 (FDR)) which were sustained until 16 weeks (effect size = 0.35, p = 0.04). The pooled effect size between all the RCTs was 0.55, which compares favorably to alternative treatments. A direct comparison to Figure-8 Coil treatment indicated that treatment with the H1 Coil was significantly more effective (p = 0.042). In contrast to previously reported studies using superficial TMS and medication for which anxiety has been shown to be a negative predictor of effectiveness, higher baseline anxiety was found to be predictive of successful outcome for the H1-Coil treatment. (4) Conclusions: Deep TMS is effective in treating comorbid anxiety in MDD and, unlike alternative treatments, the outcome does not appear to be adversely affected by high baseline anxiety levels. MDPI 2022-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8879826/ /pubmed/35207288 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11041015 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pell, Gaby S.
Harmelech, Tal
Zibman, Sam
Roth, Yiftach
Tendler, Aron
Zangen, Abraham
Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title_full Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title_fullStr Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title_short Efficacy of Deep TMS with the H1 Coil for Anxious Depression
title_sort efficacy of deep tms with the h1 coil for anxious depression
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8879826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207288
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11041015
work_keys_str_mv AT pellgabys efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression
AT harmelechtal efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression
AT zibmansam efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression
AT rothyiftach efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression
AT tendleraron efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression
AT zangenabraham efficacyofdeeptmswiththeh1coilforanxiousdepression