Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as add-on antidepressant treatment. The applicability of the method in a clinical setting

Hansen, Per Svejstrup; Videbech, Poul; Clemmensen, Karin; Sturlason, Runa; Jensen, Hans Mørch; Vestergaard, Per

doi:10.1080/08039480410011678

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not all reports, however, have found patients with depression to be responsive to rTMS, In fact, in a double-blind controlled trial, rTMS was not significantly superior to sham rTMS for treatment-resistant depressed patients (Boutros et al, 2002). Similar observations were also reported in other two studies (Loo et al, 2003, Hansen et al, 2004), where rTMS did not show evidence of better outcome compared to sham stimulation in treating resistant depression. These reports highlight the importance of placebo controlled experiments when testing rTMS efficacy on symptom improvements.…”

Section: Tms-petsupporting

confidence: 90%

Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assessment of brain connectivity and networks

Hallett

Iorio

Rossini

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this review is to show how transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) techniques can make a contribution to the study of brain networks. Brain networks are fundamental in understanding how the brain operates. Effects on remote areas can be directly observed or identified after a period of stimulation, and each section of this review will discuss one method. EEG analyzed following TMS is called TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). A conditioning TMS can influence the effect of a test TMS given over the motor cortex. A disynaptic connection can be tested also by assessing the effect of a pre-conditioning stimulus on the conditioning-test pair. Basal ganglia-cortical relationships can be assessed using electrodes placed in the process of deep brain stimulation therapy. Cerebellar-cortical relationships can be determined using TMS over the cerebellum. Remote effects of TMS on the brain can be found as well using neuroimaging, including both positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The methods complement each other since they give different views of brain networks, and it is often valuable to use more than one technique to achieve converging evidence. The final product of this type of work is to show how information is processed and transmitted in the brain.

show abstract

Section: Tms-petsupporting

confidence: 90%

Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assessment of brain connectivity and networks

Hallett

Iorio

Rossini

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Avery et al, 1999 GOAT ( Nahas et al, 2003 No formal neuropsychological assessments n.a. Hansen et al, 2004 No formal neuropsychological assessments n.a. Hausmann et al, 2004a No formal neuropsychological assessments n. Neuropsychological assessment analysis and results Christyakov et al, 2005 No formal neuropsychological assessments n.a.…”

Section: Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a clinical treatment for depression

Loo

McFarquhar

Mitchell

2008

International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

199

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest worldwide in rTMS as a clinical treatment for depression. Apart from efficacy, its safety as a clinical treatment must be considered before its widespread use can be advocated. All published, sham-controlled rTMS depression trials were reviewed for reported side-effects and outcomes of formal neuropsychological testing. In addition, all reports of seizures occurring with rTMS were reviewed. Other safety concerns (effects on hearing; headache, pain, induced currents in electrical circuits, histotoxicity, electromagnetic field exposure, psychiatric complications, safety in pregnancy) are discussed. Common side-effects were of a minor nature, e.g. headache. There was a low incidence of accidental seizures and induced hypomania, both of which were associated with identified risk factors for which subjects should be screened. Long-term effects of repeated rTMS sessions are as yet unknown. When given within recommended guidelines, the overall safety profile of rTMS is good, and supports its further development as a clinical treatment.

show abstract

“…However, not all studies are positive (Boutros et al, 2002;Cohen et al, 2003;Hansen et al, 2004;Hausmann et al, 2004;Loo et al, 1999;Loo et al, 2003;Mosimann et al, 2004) and earlier studies were hampered by small sample sizes and other limitations. A recent meta-analysis argues that the improved design (dose, length of treatment) of recent studies (Avery et al, 2006;Fitzgerald et al, 2003Fitzgerald et al, , 2006 is associated with larger treatment effects than work before 2000 (Gross et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lisanby

Husain

Rosenquist

et al. 2008

Neuropsychopharmacol

288

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as add-on antidepressant treatment. The applicability of the method in a clinical setting

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assessment of brain connectivity and networks

Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assessment of brain connectivity and networks

A review of the safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a clinical treatment for depression

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About