Mindful Health Solutions, 360 Post St #500, San Francisco, CA, 94108, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Jul 9;24(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05928-4.
BACKGROUND: General psychiatrists' practice standards vary regarding when to implement transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for care of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Furthermore, few studies have examined real-world utilization and clinical outcomes of TMS. This study analyzed data from a large, multi-site psychiatric practice to evaluate utilization and outcomes of TMS as well as usual care (UC) for patients with MDD. METHODS: Depression outcomes for TMS and UC among adult patients at a multi-site psychiatric group practice were examined in this retrospective cohort analysis. Patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD, PHQ-9 ≥ 10, and a visit in November 2020 with 6-month follow-up were included and categorized into the TMS or UC cohorts. RESULTS: Of 1,011 patients with qualifying PHQ-9 at the baseline visit, 9% (89) received a full course of TMS, and 583 patients receiving UC met study inclusion criteria (339 patients were excluded due to lacking a 6-month follow-up visit or receiving esketamine during the study period). The TMS cohort had higher baseline PHQ-9 than UC (17.9 vs. 15.5, p < .001) and had failed more medication trials (≥ 4 vs. 3.1, p < .001). Mean PHQ-9 decreased by 5.7 points (SD = 6.7, p < .001) in the TMS cohort and by 4.2 points (SD = 6.4, p < .001) in the UC cohort over the study period. Among patients who had failed four or more antidepressant medications, PHQ-9 decreased by 5.8 points in the TMS cohort (SD = 6.7, p < .001) and by 3.2 points in the UC cohort (SD = 6.3, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TMS utilization was low, despite TMS showing significant real-world clinical benefits. Future research should examine and address barriers to wider adoption of TMS into routine patient care for patients with treatment-resistant MDD. Wider adoption including routine use of TMS in less treatment-resistant patients will allow statistical comparisons of outcomes between TMS and UC populations that are difficult to do when TMS is underutilized.
背景:普通精神科医生在何时为患有重度抑郁症(MDD)的患者实施经颅磁刺激(TMS)的实践标准存在差异。此外,很少有研究检查 TMS 的实际应用和临床结果。本研究分析了来自大型多地点精神科实践的数据,以评估 TMS 的应用和结果以及 MDD 患者的常规护理(UC)。
方法:对多地点精神科小组实践中成年患者的 TMS 和 UC 的抑郁结果进行了回顾性队列分析。将具有原发性 MDD 诊断、PHQ-9≥10 且在 2020 年 11 月有 6 个月随访的患者纳入并分为 TMS 或 UC 队列。
结果:在基线就诊时,有 9%(89 人)的符合 PHQ-9 条件的患者接受了完整的 TMS 疗程,583 名接受 UC 的患者符合研究纳入标准(由于缺乏 6 个月的随访就诊或在研究期间接受 Esketamine,339 名患者被排除在外)。TMS 队列的基线 PHQ-9 高于 UC(17.9 比 15.5,p<.001),且药物试验失败次数更多(≥4 次比 3.1 次,p<.001)。在研究期间,TMS 队列的 PHQ-9 平均降低了 5.7 分(标准差=6.7,p<.001),UC 队列的 PHQ-9 平均降低了 4.2 分(标准差=6.4,p<.001)。在经历过四次或以上抗抑郁药物治疗失败的患者中,TMS 队列的 PHQ-9 降低了 5.8 分(标准差=6.7,p<.001),UC 队列的 PHQ-9 降低了 3.2 分(标准差=6.3,p<.001)。
结论:尽管 TMS 显示出显著的真实世界临床益处,但 TMS 的利用率仍然很低。未来的研究应该检查和解决将 TMS 广泛应用于治疗抵抗性 MDD 患者常规护理的障碍。更广泛的应用,包括在治疗抵抗性较低的患者中常规使用 TMS,将允许对 TMS 和 UC 人群之间的结果进行统计学比较,而当 TMS 使用率较低时,这种比较很难进行。
Psychiatriki. 2021-12
Pharmacoeconomics. 2021-6