Academic Department of Psychiatry, Kolling Institute, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2021 Apr;55(4):355-365. doi: 10.1177/00048674211006192.
This article is a detailed response to the criticisms levelled by the authors of an accompanying viewpoint, which claims that the positioning of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) clinical practice guidelines for the management mood disorders (MDcpg) is incorrect. We, the authors of the MDcpg, strongly refute these assertions and argue that first we have determined the positioning of rTMS using the same criteria as those applied to other treatments for depression. Second, in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines, the processes by which we have developed the MDcpg have been guided by best practice and have been overseen throughout by the RANZCP. Third, our objective and detailed examination of the relevant research has shown that the evidence needed to support the positioning of rTMS alongside standard therapies for depression is severely deficient. And therefore, as a consequence, we set out clearly both our logic and reasoning with respect to interpreting rTMS data and outline our evidence-informed position in which rTMS remains a potential alternative therapy that can be considered in certain clinical circumstances once both suitable psychological and pharmacological treatments have been trialled. We also discuss why, until further research is conducted, rTMS is perhaps best regarded as an experimental therapy and an investigational tool, and to assist in this regard, we propose a framework for consideration by those conducting rTMS studies in the future. Thus, based on current knowledge, we conclude that rTMS does not have a sufficient evidence base to warrant recognition as a standard therapy for depression alongside established treatments such as psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. Furthermore, there is no clinical profile for depressed patients that might benefit from rTMS and therefore tolerability alone is not good enough reason to promote rTMS in the management of major depression.
这篇文章是对一篇伴随观点文章的批评的详细回应,该观点声称重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)在 2020 年澳大利亚和新西兰皇家精神科医师学院(RANZCP)心境障碍管理临床实践指南(MDcpg)中的定位不正确。我们,MDcpg 的作者,强烈驳斥这些说法,并认为首先,我们使用与用于治疗抑郁症的其他治疗方法相同的标准来确定 rTMS 的定位。其次,根据澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会(NHMRC)的指南,我们制定 MDcpg 的过程遵循最佳实践,并由 RANZCP 全程监督。第三,我们对相关研究进行了客观和详细的审查,结果表明,支持 rTMS 与标准抗抑郁治疗方法并列的证据严重不足。因此,因此,我们明确阐述了我们在解释 rTMS 数据方面的逻辑和推理,并概述了我们基于证据的立场,即在适当的心理和药物治疗已尝试的情况下,rTMS 仍然是一种潜在的替代治疗方法,可以在某些临床情况下考虑。我们还讨论了为什么在进一步研究之前,rTMS 最好被视为实验性治疗和研究工具,并且为了在这方面提供帮助,我们提出了一个框架,供未来进行 rTMS 研究的人员考虑。因此,根据目前的知识,我们得出结论,rTMS 没有足够的证据基础,无法与心理干预、药物治疗和电惊厥治疗等既定治疗方法一起作为抑郁症的标准治疗方法得到认可。此外,没有任何适合接受 rTMS 治疗的抑郁症患者的临床特征,因此,仅仅是耐受性好并不能成为在治疗重度抑郁症中推广 rTMS 的充分理由。