Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023752%3A_____%2F21%3A43920609" target="_blank" >RIV/00023752:_____/21:43920609 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00216208:11120/21:43921734
Result on the web
<a href="https://www.dovepress.com/neurostimulation-methods-in-the-treatment-of-depression-a-comparison-o-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-NDT" target="_blank" >https://www.dovepress.com/neurostimulation-methods-in-the-treatment-of-depression-a-comparison-o-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-NDT</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S303226" target="_blank" >10.2147/NDT.S303226</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Neurostimulation Methods in the Treatment of Depression: A Comparison of rTMS, tDCS, and Venlafaxine Using a Pooled Analysis of Two Studies
Original language description
Background: There are no head-to-head studies comparing the antidepressant effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This pooled analysis compared indirectly the antidepressant efficacy and acceptability of rTMS, tDCS, and the antidepressant venlafaxine (VNF) extended-release. Methods: The analysis (n=117, both patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and non-TRD were included) examined pooled data from two 4-week, single-centered, two-armed, double-blind, randomized studies (EUDRACT n. 2005-000826-22 and EUDRACT n. 2015-001639-19). The antidepressant efficacy of right-sided low-frequency rTMS (n=29) vs VNF (n=31) and left-sided anodal tDCS (n=29) vs VNF (n=28) was evaluated. The primary outcome was a change in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score from baseline to the treatment endpoint at week 4. The response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the MADRS score and remission as the MADRS score ≤ 10 points, both were calculated for the primary treatment endpoint at week 4. Results: Mean change in total MADRS scores from baseline to week 4 was 7.0 (95% CI, 4.8– 9.1) points in the rTMS group, 7.6 (95% CI, 5.5– 9.8) in the tDCS group, and 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4– 10.4) among patients in the VNF group, a non-significant difference (F(2111)=0.62, p=0.54). Similarly, neither the response rates nor remission rates for rTMS (response 31%; remission 17%), tDCS (24%, 17%), or VNF (41%; 27%) significantly differed among treatment groups (χ2=2.59, p=0.28; χ2=1.66, p=0.44). Twenty patients (17%) dropped out of the studies in a similar proportion across groups (rTMS 3/29, tDCS 6/29, VNF 11/59, χ2=1.41, p=0.52). Conclusion: Our current analysis found a comparable efficacy and acceptability in all three treatment modalities (rTMS, tDCS, and VNF) and clinical relevance for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30215 - Psychiatry
Result continuities
Project
<a href="/en/project/NV18-04-00260" target="_blank" >NV18-04-00260: Clinical and neurobiological predictors of response to ketamine: towards personalized treatment of depression</a><br>
Continuities
P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)
Others
Publication year
2021
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
ISSN
1178-2021
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
2021
Issue of the periodical within the volume
17
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
10
Pages from-to
1713-1722
UT code for WoS article
000659027300003
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85107838305