Daily Left Prefrontal Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial | Depressive Disorders | JAMA Psychiatry | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.185.54. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ustün  TBAyuso-Mateos  JLChatterji  SMathers  CMurray  CJ Global burden of depressive disorders in the year 2000.  Br J Psychiatry May 2004;184386- 392Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Chisholm  Dvan Ommeren  MAyuso-Mateos  JLSaxena  S Cost-effectiveness of clinical interventions for reducing the global burden of bipolar disorder.  Br J Psychiatry 2005;187559- 567PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Greden  JF The burden of disease for treatment-resistant depression.  J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62 ((suppl 16)) 26- 31PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Lopez  ADMathers  CDEzzati  MJamison  DTMurray  CJ Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data.  Lancet 2006;367 (9524) 1747- 1757PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Frank  EPrien  RFJarrett  RBKeller  MBKupfer  DJLavori  PWRush  AJWeissman  MM Conceptualization and rationale for consensus definitions of terms in major depressive disorder: remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48 (9) 851- 855PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Trivedi  MHRush  AJWisniewski  SRNierenberg  AAWarden  DRitz  LNorquist  GHowland  RHLebowitz  BMcGrath  PJShores-Wilson  KBiggs  MMBalasubramani  GKFava  MSTAR*D Study Team, Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice.  Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (1) 28- 40PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Rush  AJTrivedi  MHWisniewski  SRStewart  JWNierenberg  AAThase  MERitz  LBiggs  MMWarden  DLuther  JFShores-Wilson  KNiederehe  GFava  MSTAR*D Study Team, Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.  N Engl J Med 2006;354 (12) 1231- 1242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Rush  AJTrivedi  MHWisniewski  SRNierenberg  AAStewart  JWWarden  DNiederehe  GThase  MELavori  PWLebowitz  BDMcGrath  PJRosenbaum  JFSackeim  HAKupfer  DJLuther  JFava  M Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report.  Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (11) 1905- 1917PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fekadu  AWooderson  SCMarkopoulo  KDonaldson  CPapadopoulos  ACleare  AJ What happens to patients with treatment-resistant depression? a systematic review of medium to long term outcome studies.  J Affect Disord 2009;116 (1-2) 4- 11PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Baldessarini  RJMarsh  E Fluoxetine and side effects.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990;47 (2) 191- 192PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Pollack  MHRosenbaum  JF Management of antidepressant-induced side effects: a practical guide for the clinician.  J Clin Psychiatry 1987;48 (1) 3- 8PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Remick  RAFroese  CKeller  FD Common side effects associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989;13 (3-4) 497- 504PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Thase  MRush  AJ When at first you don't succeed: sequential strategies for antidepressant non-responders.  J Clin Psychiatry 1997;58 ((suppl 13)) 23- 29PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Rush  AJThase  ME Strategies and tactics in the treatment of chronic depression.  J Clin Psychiatry 1997;58 (13 (suppl 13)) 14- 22PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Thase  ME The need for clinically relevant research on treatment-resistant depression.  J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62 (4) 221- 224PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Thase  MEEntsuah  ARRudolph  RL Remission rates during treatment with venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.  Br J Psychiatry 2001;178234- 241PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Thase  ME Studying new antidepressants: if there were a light at the end of the tunnel, could we see it?  J Clin Psychiatry 2002;63 ((suppl 2)) 24- 28PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Olfson  MMarcus  SC National patterns in antidepressant medication treatment.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009;66 (8) 848- 856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
George  MSBelmaker  RH Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropsychiatry.  Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000
20.
George  MSLisanby  SHSackeim  HA Transcranial magnetic stimulation: applications in neuropsychiatry.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56 (4) 300- 311PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Padberg  FGeorge  MS Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in depression.  Exp Neurol 2009;219 (1) 2- 13PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
George  MSAston-Jones  G Noninvasive techniques for probing neurocircuitry and treating illness: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).  Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35 (1) 301- 316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Schlaepfer  TEGeorge  MSMayberg  H WFSBP Guidelines on Brain Stimulation Treatments in Psychiatry.  World J Biol Psychiatry August26 2009;1- 17PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Fox  PIngham  RGeorge  MSMayberg  HIngham  JRoby  JMartin  CJerabek  P Imaging human intra-cerebral connectivity by PET during TMS.  Neuroreport 1997;8 (12) 2787- 2791PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
George  MSBohning  DE Measuring brain connectivity with functional imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).  In: Desimone  B ed.  Neuropsychopharmacology: Fifth Generation of Progress. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:393-410Google Scholar
26.
Ilmoniemi  RJVirtanen  JRuohonen  JKarhu  JAronen  HJNäätänen  RKatila  T Neuronal responses to magnetic stimulation reveal cortical reactivity and connectivity.  Neuroreport 1997;8 (16) 3537- 3540PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Münchau  ABloem  RIrlbacher  KTrimble  MRRothwell  JC Functional connectivity of human premotor and motor cortex explored with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.  J Neurosci 2002;22 (2) 554- 561PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Paus  TJech  RThompson  CJComeau  RPeters  TEvans  AC Transcranial magnetic stimulation during positron emission tomography: a new method for studying connectivity of the human cerebral cortex.  J Neurosci 1997;17 (9) 3178- 3184PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Paus  TCastro-Alamancos  MAPetrides  M Cortico-cortical connectivity of the human mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex and its modulation by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Eur J Neurosci 2001;14 (8) 1405- 1411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Schwartz  MLGoldman-Rakic  PS Callosal and intrahemispheric connectivity of the prefrontal association cortex in rhesus monkey: relation between intraparietal and principal sulcal cortex.  J Comp Neurol 1984;226 (3) 403- 420PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Shajahan  PMGlabus  MFSteele  JDDoris  ABAnderson  KJenkins  JAGooding  PAEbmeier  KP Left dorso-lateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation affects cortical excitability and functional connectivity, but does not impair cognition in major depression.  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2002;26 (5) 945- 954PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Speer  AMBenson  BEKimbrell  TKWassermann  EMWillis  MWHerscovitch  PPost  RM Opposite effects of high and low frequency rTMS on mood in depressed patients: relationship to baseline cerebral activity on PET.  J Affect Disord 2009;115 (3) 386- 394PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Paulus  WClassen  JCohen  LGLarge  CHDi Lazzaro  VNitsche  MPascual-Leone  ARosenow  FRothwell  JCZiemann  U Pharmacologic effects on cortical excitability measures tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Brain Stimulat 2008;1 (3) 151- 163Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Ziemann  UPaulus  WNitsche  MAPascual-Leone  AByblow  WDBerardelli  ASiebner  HRClassen  JCohen  LGRothwell  JC Motor cortex plasticity protocols.  Brain Stimulat 2008;1 (3) 164- 182Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Di Lazzaro  VZiemann  ULemon  RN Physiology of transcranial motor cortex stimulation.  Brain Stimulat 2008;1 (4) 345- 362Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Heide  GWitte  OWZiemann  U Physiology of modulation of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency suprathreshold repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Exp Brain Res 2006;171 (1) 26- 34PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Ilić  TVZiemann  U Exploring motor cortical plasticity using transcranial magnetic stimulation in humans.  Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005;1048175- 184PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Wassermann  EMWedegaertner  FRZiemann  UGeorge  MSChen  R Crossed reduction of human motor cortex excitability by 1-hz transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Neurosci Lett 1998;250 (3) 141- 144PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Herwig  U Fallgatter  AJHoppner  JEschweiler  GWKron  MHajak  GPadberg  FNaderi-Heiden  AAbler  BEichhammer  PGrossheinrich  NHay  BKammer  TLangguth  BLaske  CPlewnia  CRichter  MMSchulz  MUnterecker  SZinke  ASpitzer  MSchönfeldt-Lecuona  C Antidepressant effects of augmentative transcranial magnetic stimulation: randomised multicentre trial.  Br J Psychiatry 2007;191441- 448PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
O’Reardon  JPSolvason  HBJanicak  PGSampson  SIsenberg  KENahas  ZMcDonald  WMAvery  DFitzgerald  PBLoo  CDemitrack  MAGeorge  MSSackeim  HA Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial.  Biol Psychiatry 2007;62 (11) 1208- 1216PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Holtzheimer  PE  IIIRusso  JAvery  D A meta-analysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression.  Psychopharmacol Bull 2001;35 (4) 149- 169PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Burt  TLisanby  SHSackeim  HA Neuropsychiatric applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2002;5 (1) 73- 103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Kozel  FAGeorge  MS Meta-analysis of left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to treat depression.  J Psychiatr Pract 2002;8 (5) 270- 275PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Martin  JLRBarbanoj  MJSchlaepfer  TEClos  SPerez  VKulisevsky  JGironell  A Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression [Cochrane Library on CD-ROM].  Oxford, England: Update Software; 2002;issue 2
45.
Ridding  MCRothwell  JC Is there a future for therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation?  Nat Rev Neurosci 2007;8 (7) 559- 567PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Lisanby  SHGutman  DLuber  BSchroeder  CSackeim  HA Sham TMS: intracerebral measurement of the induced electrical field and the induction of motor-evoked potentials.  Biol Psychiatry 2001;49 (5) 460- 463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Loo  CKTaylor  JLGandevia  SCMcDarmont  BNMitchell  PBSachdev  PS Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in controlled treatment studies: are some “sham” forms active?  Biol Psychiatry 2000;47 (4) 325- 331PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Sackeim  HA Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: what are the next steps?  Biol Psychiatry 2000;48 (10) 959- 961PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Schutter  DJ Antidepressant efficacy of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in double-blind sham-controlled designs: a meta-analysis.  Psychol Med 2009;39 (1) 65- 75PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Gershon  AADannon  PNGrunhaus  L Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression.  Am J Psychiatry 2003;160 (5) 835- 845PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Kirkcaldie  MTPridmore  SAPascual-Leone  A Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapy for depression and other disorders.  Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1997;31 (2) 264- 272PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Johnson  KARamsey  DKozel  FABohning  DEAnderson  BNahas  ZSackeim  HAGeorge  MS Using imaging to target the prefrontal cortex for transcranial magnetic stimulation studies in treatment-resistant depression.  Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2006;8 (2) 266- 268Google Scholar
53.
Sackeim  HARoose  SPLavori  PW Determining the duration of antidepressant treatment: application of signal detection methodology and the need for duration adaptive designs (DAD).  Biol Psychiatry 2006;59 (6) 483- 492PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Gallo  P Operational challenges in adaptive design implementation.  Pharm Stat 2006;5 (2) 119- 124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Krams  MBurman  CFDragalin  VGaydos  BGrieve  APPinheiro  JMaurer  WGallo  P Adaptive designs in clinical drug development: opportunities, challenges, and scope reflections following PhRMA's November 2006 workshop.  J Biopharm Stat 2007;17 (6) 957- 964PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Orloff  JDouglas  FPinheiro  JLevinson  SBranson  MChaturvedi  PEtte  EGallo  PHirsch  GMehta  CPatel  NSabir  SSprings  SStanski  DEvers  MRFleming  ESingh  NTramontin  TGolub  H The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design.  Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8 (12) 949- 957PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Borckardt  JJWalker  JBranham  RKRydin-Gray  SHunter  CBeeson  HReeves  STMadan  ASackeim  HGeorge  MS Development and evaluation of a portable sham TMS system.  Brain Stimulat 2008;1 (1) 52- 59PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Arana  ABBorckardt  JJRicci  RAnderson  BLi  XLinder  KJLong  JSackeim  HAGeorge  MS Focal electrical stimulation as a sham control for rTMS: does it truly mimic the cutaneous sensation and pain of active prefrontal rTMS?  Brain Stimulat 2008;1 (1) 44- 51PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Sackeim  HA The definition and meaning of treatment-resistant depression.  J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62 ((suppl 16)) 10- 17PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Borckardt  JJNahas  ZKoola  JGeorge  MS Estimating resting motor thresholds in transcranial magnetic stimulation research and practice: a computer simulation evaluation of best methods.  J ECT 2006;22 (3) 169- 175PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
George  MSWassermann  EMWilliams  WACallahan  AKetter  TABasser  PHallett  MPost  RM Daily repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves mood in depression.  Neuroreport 1995;6 (14) 1853- 1856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
George  MSWassermann  EMWilliams  WASteppel  JPascual-Leone  ABasser  PHallett  MPost  RM Changes in mood and hormone levels after rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the prefrontal cortex.  J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1996;8 (2) 172- 180PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
Herwig  USatrapi  PSchonfeldt-Lecuona  C Using the international 10-20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Brain Topogr 2003;16 (2) 95- 99PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Herwig  UPadberg  FUnger  JSpitzer  MSchonfeldt-Lecuona  C Transcranial magnetic stimulation in therapy studies: examination of the reliability of “standard” coil positioning by neuronavigation.  Biol Psychiatry 2001;50 (1) 58- 61PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Herbsman  TAvery  DRamsey  DHoltzheimer  PWadjik  CHardaway  FHaynor  DGeorge  MSNahas  Z More lateral and anterior prefrontal coil location is associated with better repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation antidepressant response.  Biol Psychiatry 2009;66 (5) 509- 515PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Rush  AJKraemer  HCSackeim  HAFava  MTrivedi  MHFrank  ENinan  PTThase  MEGelenberg  AJKupfer  DJRegier  DARosenbaum  JFRay  OSchatzberg  AFACNP Task Force, Report by the ACNP Task Force on response and remission in major depressive disorder.  Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;31 (9) 1841- 1853PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Lisanby  SHHusain  MMRosenquist  PBMaixner  DGutierrez  RKrystal  AGilmer  WMarangell  LBAaronson  SDaskalakis  ZJCanterbury  RRichelson  ESackeim  HAGeorge  MS Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: clinical predictors of outcome in a multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial.  Neuropsychopharmacology 2009;34 (2) 522- 534PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Epstein  CMEvatt  MLFunk  AGirard-Siqueira  LLupei  NSlaughter  LAthar  SGreen  JMcDonald  WDeLong  MR An open study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression with Parkinson's disease.  Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118 (10) 2189- 2194PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Anderson  BMishory  ANahas  ZBorckardt  JJYamanaka  KRastogi  KGeorge  MS Tolerability and safety of high daily doses of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy young men.  J ECT 2006;22 (1) 49- 53PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Jorge  REMoser  DJAcion  LRobinson  RG Treatment of vascular depression using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation  Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65 (3) 268- 276PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Sackeim  HADillingham  EMPrudic  JCooper  TMcCall  WVRosenquist  PIsenberg  KGarcia  KMulsant  BHHaskett  RF Effect of concomitant pharmacotherapy on electroconvulsive therapy outcomes: short-term efficacy and adverse effects.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009;66 (7) 729- 737PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Fava  MRush  AJWisniewski  SRNierenberg  AAAlpert  JEMcGrath  PJThase  MEWarden  DBiggs  MLuther  JFNiederehe  GRitz  LTrivedi  MH A comparison of mirtazapine and nortriptyline following two consecutive failed medication treatments for depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.  Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (7) 1161- 1172PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Nierenberg  AAFava  MTrivedi  MHWisniewski  SRThase  MEMcGrath  PJAlpert  JEWarden  DLuther  JFNiederehe  GLebowitz  BShores-Wilson  KRush  AJ A comparison of lithium and T(3) augmentation following two failed medication treatments for depression: a STAR*D report.  Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (9) 1519- 1530, 1665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Wisniewski  SRFava  MTrivedi  MHThase  MEWarden  DNiederehe  GFriedman  ESBiggs  MMSackeim  HAShores-Wilson  KMcGrath  PJLavori  PWMiyahara  SRush  AJ Acceptability of second-step treatments to depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.  Am J Psychiatry 2007;164 (5) 753- 760PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
McGrath  PJStewart  JWFava  MTrivedi  MHWisniewski  SRNierenberg  AAThase  MEDavis  LBiggs  MMShores-Wilson  KLuther  JFNiederehe  GWarden  DRush  AJ Tranylcypromine versus venlafaxine plus mirtazapine following three failed antidepressant medication trials for depression: a STAR*D report.  Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (9) 1531- 1541, 1666PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Funk  APGeorge  MS Prefrontal EEG asymmetry as a potential biomarker of antidepressant treatment response with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a case series.  Clin EEG Neurosci 2008;39 (3) 125- 130PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Li  XNahas  ZAnderson  BKozel  FAGeorge  MS Can left prefrontal rTMS be used as a maintenance treatment for bipolar depression?  Depress Anxiety 2004;20 (2) 98- 100PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
O’Reardon  JPBlumner  KHPeshek  ADPradilla  RRPimiento  PC Long-term maintenance therapy for major depressive disorder with rTMS.  J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66 (12) 1524- 1528PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Nahas  ZOliver  NCJohnson  MMolloya  MHughesa  PLBallengera  JCRischa  SCGeorge  MS Feasibility and efficacy of left prefrontal rTMS as a maintenance antidepressant.  Biol Psychiatry 2000;47 (8 (suppl 1)) S156- S157Google ScholarCrossref
80.
Janicak  PGO’Reardon  JPSampson  SMHusain  MMLisanby  SHRado  JTHeart  KLDemitrack  MA Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a comprehensive summary of safety experience from acute exposure, extended exposure, and during reintroduction treatment.  J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69 (2) 222- 232PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Grunhaus  LSchreiber  SDolberg  OTPolak  DDannon  PN A randomized controlled comparison of electroconvulsive therapy and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in severe and resistant nonpsychotic major depression.  Biol Psychiatry 2003;53 (4) 324- 331PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Dannon  PNDolberg  OTSchreiber  SGrunhaus  L Three and six-month outcome following courses of either ECT or rTMS in a population of severely depressed individuals: preliminary report.  Biol Psychiatry 2002;51 (8) 687- 690PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    TMS: Does it Really Work?
    Jeffrey A. Mattes, M.D. | Psychopharmacology Research Association of Princeton
    No relevant conflicts of interest.
    Letter to the Editor:
    I’m writing regarding the article by George et al. on TMS in the May 2010 issue (Volume 67, No. 5, pages 507-516).
    I’ve always been skeptical regarding the efficacy of TMS, partly because it affects primarily the superficial layers of the cortex, while moods like depression are thought to involve deeper structures in the brain (e.g. the limbic lobe). So I may be overly critical, but I question whether this study is, as the authors state, a “relatively unambiguous demonstration of a treatment effect in the absence of
    unblinding”.
    Several issues deserve clarification. In their “Concomitant Treatments” section, the authors indicate that remission was defined as a Ham-D score of 3 or less; was this a misprint? “3” is unusually low; if they really used 3 to define remitters, was this chosen a priori, before seeing the data.
    The percentage of responders was quite low, only 15% in the active group and 5% in the sham group. It’s true that these were relatively refractory patients, but one still might have expected a higher response rate. Somewhat paradoxically, perhaps, the response rate in Phase II, which provided open TMS treatment, yielded a much higher response rate, about 30%, whether patients received active or sham treatment during Phase I. This is hard to explain, and suggests that patients were not so very refractory.
    While the authors present a number of analyses, they don’t present what I think would still be considered the most standard analysis, including all data, last observation carried forward, on an intent to treat basis. Their footnote “a” on Table 5 indicates that scores missing at the end of Phase I were considered as missing observations, rather than using LOCF. This resulted in the loss of about 10% of patients, in data analyses. There are pros and cons to different statistical approaches, but I think the standard analyses should be presented, even if other analyses were stated a priori to be primary and were therefore given more weight.
    The authors report under “Site Differences” that 15 of the 18 remitters came from only two of the four sites. They relate this to those two sites also having less treatment resistant individuals, but since the response to Phase II was so much better than to Phase I, I think that they should also indicate whether most of the remitters at the end of Phase II also came from those two sites. I think too that the authors should state which sites had the large number of remitters; clearly one of the sites (MUSC) has been most involved with the development of TMS, and might have the most conflict of interest (even if this conflict is not financial). The authors made a valiant attempt to preserve the blind, but treaters, as they indicate, were able to guess whether patients were receiving active treatment or sham, better than chance. This may also occur in medication studies, but I think it’s especially relevant when trying to document efficacy with novel treatments.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey A. Mattes, M.D.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Article
    May 2010

    Daily Left Prefrontal Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial

    Author Affiliations

    Author Affiliations: Brain Stimulation Division, Department of Psychiatry (Drs George, Anderson, and Nahas), and Department of Biometry (Dr Durkalski), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston (Dr George); the Division of Brain Stimulation and Therapeutic Modulation, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York (Drs Lisanby and Bulow); Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington, Seattle (Drs Avery and Zarkowski); Department of Psychiatry, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Drs McDonald and Holtzheimer); and Departments of Biostatistics (Drs Pavlicova and Ms Schwartz) and Psychiatry (Dr Sackeim), Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York.

    Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(5):507-516. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.46
    Abstract

    Context  Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been studied as a potential treatment for depression, but previous work had mixed outcomes and did not adequately mask sham conditions.

    Objective  To test whether daily left prefrontal rTMS safely and effectively treats major depressive disorder.

    Design  Prospective, multisite, randomized, active sham-controlled (1:1 randomization), duration-adaptive design with 3 weeks of daily weekday treatment (fixed-dose phase) followed by continued blinded treatment for up to another 3 weeks in improvers.

    Setting  Four US university hospital clinics.

    Patients  Approximately 860 outpatients were screened, yielding 199 antidepressant drug–free patients with unipolar nonpsychotic major depressive disorder.

    Intervention  We delivered rTMS to the left prefrontal cortex at 120% motor threshold (10 Hz, 4-second train duration, and 26-second intertrain interval) for 37.5 minutes (3000 pulses per session) using a figure-eight solid-core coil. Sham rTMS used a similar coil with a metal insert blocking the magnetic field and scalp electrodes that delivered matched somatosensory sensations.

    Main Outcome Measure  In the intention-to-treat sample (n = 190), remission rates were compared for the 2 treatment arms using logistic regression and controlling for site, treatment resistance, age, and duration of the current depressive episode.

    Results  Patients, treaters, and raters were effectively masked. Minimal adverse effects did not differ by treatment arm, with an 88% retention rate (90% sham and 86% active). Primary efficacy analysis revealed a significant effect of treatment on the proportion of remitters (14.1% active rTMS and 5.1% sham) (P = .02). The odds of attaining remission were 4.2 times greater with active rTMS than with sham (95% confidence interval, 1.32-13.24). The number needed to treat was 12. Most remitters had low antidepressant treatment resistance. Almost 30% of patients remitted in the open-label follow-up (30.2% originally active and 29.6% sham).

    Conclusion  Daily left prefrontal rTMS as monotherapy produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful antidepressant therapeutic effects greater than sham.

    Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00149838

    ×