Epworth Healthcare, The Epworth Clinic, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia; Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Victoria, Australia.
Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Victoria, Australia.
J Affect Disord. 2018 May;232:79-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.016. Epub 2018 Feb 17.
BACKGROUND: High-frequency left-sided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now commonly used treatment for patients with depression. However, there are several other forms of rTMS (low-frequency right-sided and sequential bilateral rTMS) which have also been shown to be effective. No information has been systematically gathered on the likelihood of response to alternative forms of rTMS in patients who do not improve after an initial course of left-sided treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there are differences in antidepressant response between switching to either low-frequency right sided or sequential bilateral stimulation or continuing high-frequency left-sided TMS following non-response to an initial course of high-frequency left-sided rTMS. METHODS: 113 rTMS naïve patients were provided with an initial three-week course of high-frequency left-sided rTMS. Non-responders were then randomised to receive another three weeks of left-sided treatment (n = 21), right-sided low frequency stimulation (n = 18) or sequential bilateral rTMS (n = 20). RESULTS: Although there was an overall improvement in depressive symptoms in the randomised phase of the study, no significant differences in response was seen between the three treatment groups on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of the study was the duration of treatment provided in both the lead in and random treatment phases. CONCLUSION: This study does not provide evidence for differences in response to different forms of rTMS in initial non-responders to left-sided stimulation. However, further studies with longer periods of treatment and a larger sample size are required to definitively establish or exclude between group differences in rTMS response in initial non-responders to treatment.
背景:高频左侧重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)现在常用于治疗抑郁症患者。然而,还有其他几种形式的 rTMS(低频右侧和序贯双侧 rTMS)也已被证明有效。对于初始左侧治疗后无改善的患者,尚未系统收集关于对替代形式的 rTMS 反应可能性的信息。 目的:评估在初始高频左侧 rTMS 治疗后无反应的情况下,切换到低频右侧或序贯双侧刺激或继续高频左侧 TMS 是否会在抗抑郁反应方面存在差异。 方法:113 名 rTMS 初治患者接受了为期三周的高频左侧 rTMS 初始治疗。无反应者随后被随机分配接受另外三周的左侧治疗(n=21)、右侧低频刺激(n=18)或序贯双侧 rTMS(n=20)。 结果:尽管研究的随机阶段患者的抑郁症状总体有所改善,但在蒙哥马利抑郁评定量表或汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表评分上,三组治疗之间的反应无显著差异。 局限性:该研究的主要局限性在于主导和随机治疗阶段提供的治疗时间。 结论:本研究未提供证据表明在初始左侧刺激无反应者中,不同形式的 rTMS 反应存在差异。然而,需要进行具有更长治疗时间和更大样本量的进一步研究,以明确或排除初始治疗无反应者中 rTMS 反应的组间差异。
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019-4-8
Am J Psychiatry. 2025-6-1