Lisanby Sarah H, Husain Mustafa M, Rosenquist Peter B, Maixner Daniel, Gutierrez Rosben, Krystal Andrew, Gilmer William, Marangell Lauren B, Aaronson Scott, Daskalakis Zafiris J, Canterbury Randolph, Richelson Elliott, Sackeim Harold A, George Mark S
Division of Brain Stimulation and Therapeutic Modulation, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Jan;34(2):522-34. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.118. Epub 2008 Aug 13.
Randomized controlled trials support the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); however, there is individual variability in the magnitude of response. Examination of response predictors has been hampered by methodological limitations such as small sample sizes and single-site study designs. Data from a multisite sham-controlled trial of the antidepressant efficacy of TMS provided an opportunity to examine predictors of acute outcome. An open-label extension for patients who failed to improve provided the opportunity for confirmatory analysis. Treatment was administered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at 10 pulses per second, 120% of motor threshold, for a total of 3000 pulses per day. Change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale after 4 weeks was the primary efficacy outcome. A total of 301 patients with nonpsychotic unipolar major depression at 23 centers were randomized to active or sham TMS. Univariate predictor analyses showed that the degree of prior treatment resistance in the current episode was a predictor of positive treatment outcome in both the controlled study and the open-label extension trial. In the randomized trial, shorter duration of current episode was also associated with a better outcome. In the open-label extension study, absence of anxiety disorder comorbidity was associated with an improved outcome, but duration of current episode was not. The number of prior treatment failures was the strongest predictor for positive response to acute treatment with TMS. Shorter duration of current illness and lack of anxiety comorbidity may also confer an increased likelihood of good antidepressant response to TMS.
随机对照试验支持经颅磁刺激(TMS)的抗抑郁疗效;然而,反应程度存在个体差异。由于样本量小和单中心研究设计等方法学限制,对反应预测因素的研究受到了阻碍。一项关于TMS抗抑郁疗效的多中心假刺激对照试验的数据为研究急性治疗结果的预测因素提供了机会。对治疗无效患者的开放标签延长期试验为验证性分析提供了机会。治疗采用每秒10次脉冲、运动阈值的120%,对左侧背外侧前额叶皮层进行刺激,每天共3000次脉冲。4周后蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表的变化是主要疗效指标。23个中心的301例非精神病性单相重度抑郁症患者被随机分为接受活性TMS或假刺激TMS治疗。单变量预测因素分析显示,在对照研究和开放标签延长期试验中,当前发作中先前治疗抵抗的程度是治疗积极结果的一个预测因素。在随机试验中,当前发作持续时间较短也与较好的结果相关。在开放标签延长期试验中,无焦虑症共病与较好的结果相关,但当前发作持续时间则不然。先前治疗失败的次数是TMS急性治疗阳性反应的最强预测因素。当前疾病持续时间较短和无焦虑症共病也可能增加对TMS产生良好抗抑郁反应的可能性。