Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Depression in a Real-World Setting: Findings from a Cohort Study

• Published in: Brain sciences Vol. 14; no. 9; p. 949
• Main Authors: Prodi, Tiziano, Pezzullo, Gabriele, La Monica, Kevin, Priori, Alberto, Vismara, Matteo, Dell’Osso, Bernardo, Benatti, Beatrice
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.09.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: Analysis; Antidepressants; anxiety; bipolar disorder; Brain research; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; cognition; Cohort analysis; Data collection; depressive disorder; Electroconvulsive therapy; Magnetic fields; Mental depression; Neuromodulation; Remission (Medicine); Response rates; Statistical analysis; Substance abuse treatment; Suicides & suicide attempts; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); depressive disorder; anxiety; bipolar disorder; cognition; transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
• ISSN: 2076-3425; 2076-3425
• DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14090949

Background/Objectives: In the past two decades, significant advancements in neuromodulation techniques have occurred, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). According to the assumption that repeated stimulation within a condensed timeframe can yield sustained efficacy, an accelerated protocol may be more effective in reducing time to response. With those premises, this study aimed to evaluate a sample of TRD patients treated with standard repetitive TMS (rTMS) and accelerated rTMS (arTMS). Methods: Nine subjects were treated with standard rTMS and 19 with arTMS. Psychometric assessment was made at the baseline and one week, one month, and three months after the treatment. A linear mixed-effect regression was performed along with other appropriate statistical analyses. Results: A significant improvement over time was observed for both depressive and cognitive symptoms. Moreover, considering the reduction in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores, a better treatment response was observed in subjects treated with arTMS (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings showed a significant difference between the two protocols in terms of clinical response. Although further studies are needed to confirm the superiority of arTMS, the better cost-effectiveness of this technique should be considered.