Safety and efficacy of targeting the supplementary motor area with double-cone deep transcranial magnetic stimulation vs figure-eight coil in treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder with comorbid major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Supplementary Motor Area (SMA), a relatively large brain structure predominantly located along the interhemispheric fissure, is an established target for repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). We investigated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of targeting SMA using a double-cone "deep" TMS coil compared to conventional figure-eight coil for treatment of OCD with comorbid Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). METHODS: Sixty-two patients with treatment-resistant OCD and comorbid MDD participated in the study. All patients received high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with a figure-eight coil (MagVenture B70), followed by 1 Hz rTMS over the bilateral SMA using either the B70 (N = 25) or double-cone deep coil (MagVenture DB80) (n = 23) for 36 treatment sessions. Weekly clinical assessments were conducted. RESULTS: Subjects overall had significant reductions in OCD and depressive symptom severity at the primary endpoint. Subjects stimulated at SMA with the double-cone deep coil had statistically significantly lesser reductions in overall OCD and depression symptom severity compared to the figure-eight group. The intensity of stimulation at SMA was significantly greater with the double-cone deep than figure-eight coil and e-field modeling showed that it affected broader regions beyond SMA (off-target stimulation). There was no significant difference in reported tolerability between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SMA stimulation using either a double-cone deep or conventional figure-of-eight coil was safe and was associated with a significant reduction in comorbid OCD and depression symptoms, but the higher intensities of stimulation with the double-cone deep coil used in this study were significantly less clinically beneficial than figure-eight coil stimulation.

The role of sex and age in the differential efficacy of 10 Hz and intermittent theta-burst (iTBS) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

BACKGROUND: Sex- and age-dependent outcome differences have been observed in treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), including 10 Hz repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS). We examined whether there are sex- and age-dependent differences in outcome with intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (iTBS), another rTMS protocol. METHODS: The relationship between biological sex, age, and treatment outcome was retrospectively examined among 414 patients with MDD treated with 10 Hz or iTBS rTMS. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to examine the association between treatment and change in the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (IDS-SR30) score from baseline to treatments 10 and 30, with biological sex (M/F), protocol (iTBS/10 Hz), age (≥/<50 years old), and time (treatment 1/10/30) included as fixed effects. The three-way sex-protocol-time and age-protocol-time interactions were used to determine any differential relationships between protocol and outcome dependent on sex and age. Post-hoc t-tests were conducted to examine differences in improvement. RESULTS: There was a significant three-way sex-protocol-time interaction at treatments 10 (p = 0.016) and 30 (p = 0.031). Males showed significantly greater improvement with iTBS than females at treatments 10 (p = 0.041) and 30 (p = 0.035), while females showed numerically greater improvement with 10 Hz treatment. While there was not a significant three-way age-protocol-time interaction, there was a significant interaction between age (≥50 years old) and time at treatments 10 (p = 0.007) and 30 (p = 0.042), and among age, sex, and time at treatment 30 (p = 0.028). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective naturalistic treatment protocol. CONCLUSIONS: iTBS appeared less efficacious in females than in males, and rTMS overall was more efficacious in patients over fifty, particularly females.

The effect of older age on outcomes of rTMS treatment for treatment-resistant depression.

Clinical outcomes of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) vary widely and there is no mood rating scale that is standard for assessing rTMS outcome. It remains unclear whether TMS is as efficacious in older adults with late-life depression (LLD) compared to younger adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). This study examined the effect of age on outcomes of rTMS treatment of adults with TRD. Self-report and observer mood ratings were measured weekly in 687 subjects ages 16-100 years undergoing rTMS treatment using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology 30-item Self-Report (IDS-SR), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ), Profile of Mood States 30-item, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item (HDRS). All rating scales detected significant improvement with treatment; response and remission rates varied by scale but not by age (response/remission ≥ 60: 38%-57%/25%-33%; <60: 32%-49%/18%-25%). Proportional hazards models showed early improvement predicted later improvement across ages, though early improvements in PHQ and HDRS were more predictive of remission in those < 60 years (relative to those ≥ 60) and greater baseline IDS burden was more predictive of non-remission in those ≥ 60 years (relative to those < 60). These results indicate there is no significant effect of age on treatment outcomes in rTMS for TRD, though rating instruments may differ in assessment of symptom burden between younger and older adults during treatment.

Treatment-Resistant Late-Life Depression: A Review of Clinical Features, Neuropsychology, Neurobiology, and Treatment.

Major depression is common in older adults (≥ 60 years of age), termed late-life depression (LLD). Up to 30% of these patients will have treatment-resistant late-life depression (TRLLD), defined as depression that persists despite two adequate antidepressant trials. TRLLD is challenging for clinicians, given several etiological factors (eg, neurocognitive conditions, medical comorbidities, anxiety, and sleep disruption). Proper assessment and management is critical, as individuals with TRLLD often present in medical settings and suffer from cognitive decline and other marks of accelerated aging. This article serves as an evidence-based guide for medical practitioners who encounter TRLLD in their practice.

Antidepressant Augmentation versus Switch in Treatment-Resistant Geriatric Depression.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression. RESULTS: In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).