Low-frequency right prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) appears to have antidepressant properties although the effectiveness of this treatment in clinical practice has not been assessed nor have the optimal stimulation parameters been adequately defined. A total of 130 patients with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to either 1- or 2-Hz rTMS over the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) for 2 wk with a possible further 2 wk extension. Non-responders were randomized to either 5- or 10-Hz left PFC rTMS. Overall, 66 patients (51%) achieved response and 35 (27%) remission criteria. For right-sided treatment, depression significantly improved but there was no between-group difference. Twenty-eight (42%) patients in the 1-Hz group and 33 (53%) patients in the 2-Hz group achieved response criteria (chi2=1.40, p>0.05). Depression symptom scores also improved for patients who crossed over to left-sided treatment but there was no significant difference in response between 5- and 10-Hz rTMS. Despite a heterogeneous sample, a significant proportion of patients met clinical response criteria following treatment but response to 1 and 2 Hz did not differ. 2-Hz right PFC rTMS has antidepressant properties but offers no advantage over 1 Hz despite doubling pulse number.
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment (rTMS) is an effective treatment for depression but the optimal methods of administration have yet to be determined. In particular, it is unclear whether there is a relationship between elements of the dose of stimulation (i.e., number of pulses) and clinical response. To address one aspect of dose, we conducted a trial comparing standard and high dose versions of high frequency left sided and low frequency right sided rTMS protocols (left standard ¼ 50 trains, left high ¼ 125 trains, right standard ¼ 20 min, right high ¼ 60 min, all per day in a single session). Method: 300 patients with treatment resistant depression were enrolled in a four arm randomized controlled trial across a four week time period. The primary outcome assessment was a comparison of response and remission rates on data from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression Rating Scale (HRSD-17). Results: The rate of response exceeded 45% in all groups. There was no significant difference between groups on initial analysis of the primary or secondary outcome measures (response rates: standard left ¼ 52.5%, high left ¼ 47.3%, standard right ¼ 49.1%, high right ¼ 48.4%). There was a greater remission rate with high compared to moderate dose left sided treatment when controlling for illness duration. We also found significant improvements in quality of life across all treatment groups. Illness duration was weakly associated with response. Conclusions: There was no consistent association between the antidepressant effect of rTMS and the number of TMS pulses provided across the ranges investigated in this study. Increasing TMS pulse number in individual sessions seems unlikely to be a method to substantially improve clinical outcomes, and future research should explore alternative means of improving clinical response. The study was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12612000321842) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id¼362063& isReview¼true.
There is no substantial difference in efficacy between unilateral right-sided rTMS and the two forms of bilateral rTMS assessed in the study. Furthermore, our results call into question the specificity between frequency and laterality and rTMS response.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment (rTMS) is an effective treatment for depression but the optimal methods of administration have yet to be determined. Recent studies have produced conflicting results as to whether unilateral rTMS is more or less effective than sequentially applied bilateral rTMS. To address this we conducted a trial comparing sequential bilateral rTMS to right-sided unilateral rTMS using a priming protocol. Patients with treatment-resistant depression (n = 179) were enrolled in a two-arm randomized controlled trial across a 4-wk time period. The primary outcome assessment was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Overall, there was a substantial response rate of >50% (and a 40% remission rate); however, there were no significant differences in clinical response between the two treatment groups. rTMS was well tolerated with a very low discontinuation rate. There was no relationship between response in the current trial and previous response, or non-response, to electroconvulsive therapy. We found no significant differences in clinical response between sequential bilateral rTMS and right-sided unilateral rTMS applied with a priming protocol. The results of this study do not support superior efficacy of bilateral rTMS and instead suggest that other approaches should be explored to increase treatment efficacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.