Search

Introduction: The clinical efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in Japan has not been adequately investigated. Furthermore, the relationship between stimulation-site pain and the antidepressant effects of rTMS has not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify (1) the real-world efficacy and safety of rTMS for TRD in Japan and (2) the relationship between stimulation-site pain and clinical improvement of depressive symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study involving 50 right-handed patients with TRD. All patients received high-frequency rTMS for up to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale (MADRS). Pain at the stimulation site was reported by the patients using a visual analog scale (VAS) after each session. Remission and response rates at 3 and 6 weeks were calculated based on the MADRS scores. The correlation between changes in the MADRS and VAS scores was examined. Results: Remission and response rates were 36% and 46%, respectively, at the end of 3 weeks, and 60% and 70%, respectively, at 6 weeks. At the end of the treatment, there was significant correlation between the reduction of MADRS and VAS scores (r = 0.42, p = 0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the clinical efficacy of rTMS in Japan and the correlation between its antidepressant effects and stimulation-site pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been employed worldwide for therapy-resistant depression. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of therapeutic devices for treating major depressive disorder; however, no studies have examined the differences in efficacy and acceptability among commercially available stimulation devices. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of 3 stimulation devices (NeuroStar, MagPro, and Magstim) for depressive disorders. Methods: Our study included 31 randomized sham-controlled trials of high-frequency rTMS included in the network meta-analysis by Brunoni. We calculated the risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing each device with sham for the endpoints of response rate, remission rate, and all-cause discontinuation. We then analyzed the differences among the devices in effect size for those endpoints. Results: After determining the effect sizes for the endpoints, we found no statistically significant subgroup differences in the response rates, all-cause discontinuation, or remission rates among the devices (p = 0.12, p = 0.84, and p = 0.07, respectively). Conclusion: Our results suggest similar efficacy and acceptability for the 3 stimulation devices. Future studies need to perform head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and acceptability of the stimulation devices for treating depression using the same stimulation protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]