Magnetic Waves vs. Electric Shocks: A Non-Inferiority Study of Magnetic Seizure Therapy and Electroconvulsive Therapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD), characterized by the failure to achieve symptomatic remission despite multiple pharmacotherapeutic treatments, poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective but limited option due to its cognitive side effects. In this context, magnetic seizure therapy (MST) has emerged as a promising alternative, offering comparable antidepressant efficacy with better cognitive outcomes. However, the clinical outcomes and cognitive effects of MST require further investigation. This double-blinded, randomized, non-inferiority study aims to compare the efficacy, tolerability, cognitive adverse effects, and neurophysiological biomarkers of MST with bilateral ECT (BT ECT) in patients with TRD. This study will employ multimodal nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and serum neurotrophic markers to gain insight into the neurobiological basis of seizure therapy. Additionally, neurophysiological biomarkers will be evaluated as secondary outcomes to predict the antidepressant and cognitive effects of both techniques. The study design, recruitment methods, ethical considerations, eligibility criteria, interventions, and blinding procedures are described. The expected outcomes will advance the field by offering a potential alternative to ECT with improved cognitive outcomes and a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of depression and antidepressant therapies.

Prevalence and risk factors of psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the ELSA-Brasil COVID-19 mental health cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence on increasing rates of psychiatric disorders and symptoms during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. We evaluated pandemic-related psychopathology and psychiatry diagnoses and their determinants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Health (ELSA-Brasil) São Paulo Research Center. METHODS: Between pre-pandemic ELSA-Brasil assessments in 2008-2010 (wave-1), 2012-2014 (wave-2), 2016-2018 (wave-3) and three pandemic assessments in 2020 (COVID-19 waves in May-July, July-September, and October-December), rates of common psychiatric symptoms, and depressive, anxiety, and common mental disorders (CMDs) were compared using the Clinical Interview Scheduled-Revised (CIS-R) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Multivariable generalized linear models, adjusted by age, gender, educational level, and ethnicity identified variables associated with an elevated risk for mental disorders. RESULTS: In 2117 participants (mean age 62.3 years, 58.2% females), rates of CMDs and depressive disorders did not significantly change over time, oscillating from 23.5% to 21.1%, and 3.3% to 2.8%, respectively; whereas rate of anxiety disorders significantly decreased (2008-2010: 13.8%; 2016-2018: 9.8%; 2020: 8%). There was a decrease along three wave-COVID assessments for depression [ß = -0.37, 99.5% confidence interval (CI) -0.50 to -0.23], anxiety (ß = -0.37, 99.5% CI -0.48 to -0.26), and stress (ß = -0.48, 99.5% CI -0.64 to -0.33) symptoms (all ps < 0.001). Younger age, female sex, lower educational level, non-white ethnicity, and previous psychiatric disorders were associated with increased odds for psychiatric disorders, whereas self-evaluated good health and good quality of relationships with decreased risk. CONCLUSION: No consistent evidence of pandemic-related worsening psychopathology in our cohort was found. Indeed, psychiatric symptoms slightly decreased along 2020. Risk factors representing socioeconomic disadvantages were associated with increased odds of psychiatric disorders.

Appraising the effectiveness of electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques in acute major depressive episodes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Appraising the effectiveness of electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques in acute major depressive episodes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Precision non-implantable neuromodulation therapies: a perspective for the depressed brain.

Current first-line treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD) include pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, one-third of depressed patients do not achieve remission after multiple medication trials, and psychotherapy can be costly and time-consuming. Although non-implantable neuromodulation (NIN) techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, and magnetic seizure therapy are gaining momentum for treating MDD, the efficacy of non-convulsive techniques is still modest, whereas use of convulsive modalities is limited by their cognitive side effects. In this context, we propose that NIN techniques could benefit from a precision-oriented approach. In this review, we discuss the challenges and opportunities in implementing such a framework, focusing on enhancing NIN effects via a combination of individualized cognitive interventions, using closed-loop approaches, identifying multimodal biomarkers, using computer electric field modeling to guide targeting and quantify dosage, and using machine learning algorithms to integrate data collected at multiple biological levels and identify clinical responders. Though promising, this framework is currently limited, as previous studies have employed small samples and did not sufficiently explore pathophysiological mechanisms associated with NIN response and side effects. Moreover, cost-effectiveness analyses have not been performed. Nevertheless, further advancements in clinical trials of NIN could shift the field toward a more "precision-oriented" practice.