24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To estimate the comparative clinical efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults.

          Design

          Systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Electronic search of Embase, PubMed/Medline, and PsycINFO up to 8 May 2018, supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of several reviews (published between 2009 and 2018) and included trials.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Clinical trials with random allocation to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (repetitive (rTMS), accelerated, priming, deep, and synchronised), theta burst stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), or sham therapy.

          Main outcome measures

          Primary outcomes were response (efficacy) and all cause discontinuation (discontinuation of treatment for any reason) (acceptability), presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Remission and continuous depression severity scores after treatment were also examined.

          Results

          113 trials (262 treatment arms) that randomised 6750 patients (mean age 47.9 years; 59% women) with major depressive disorder or bipolar depression met the inclusion criteria. The most studied treatment comparisons were high frequency left rTMS and tDCS versus sham therapy, whereas recent treatments remain understudied. The quality of the evidence was typically of low or unclear risk of bias (94 out of 113 trials, 83%) and the precision of summary estimates for treatment effect varied considerably. In network meta-analysis, 10 out of 18 treatment strategies were associated with higher response compared with sham therapy: bitemporal ECT (summary odds ratio 8.91, 95% confidence interval 2.57 to 30.91), high dose right unilateral ECT (7.27, 1.90 to 27.78), priming transcranial magnetic stimulation (6.02, 2.21 to 16.38), magnetic seizure therapy (5.55, 1.06 to 28.99), bilateral rTMS (4.92, 2.93 to 8.25), bilateral theta burst stimulation (4.44, 1.47 to 13.41), low frequency right rTMS (3.65, 2.13 to 6.24), intermittent theta burst stimulation (3.20, 1.45 to 7.08), high frequency left rTMS (3.17, 2.29 to 4.37), and tDCS (2.65, 1.55 to 4.55). Network meta-analytic estimates of active interventions contrasted with another active treatment indicated that bitemporal ECT and high dose right unilateral ECT were associated with increased response. All treatment strategies were at least as acceptable as sham therapy.

          Conclusions

          These findings provide evidence for the consideration of non-surgical brain stimulation techniques as alternative or add-on treatments for adults with major depressive episodes. These findings also highlight important research priorities in the specialty of brain stimulation, such as the need for further well designed randomised controlled trials comparing novel treatments, and sham controlled trials investigating magnetic seizure therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Meta: An R Package for Meta-Analysis.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Antidepressants and body weight: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

            Psychotropic drugs often induce weight gain, leading to discomfort and discontinuation of treatment and, more importantly, increasing the risk of obesity-related illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and coronary heart disease. There is evidence that antidepressant drugs may induce a variable amount of weight gain, but results are sparse and often contradictory. We performed a literature search using the MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane research databases for all publications available to January 2009. We used the following keywords: antidepressant, psychotropic drugs, body weight, weight gain, obesity, overweight, adverse event, side effects, SSRIs, tricyclic antidepressants, and the name of each antidepressant active compound together with body weight or other keywords. Studies reporting body weight changes during treatment with different antidepressants were selected for eligibility. Finally, 116 studies were included in the analysis. Weight change mean and standard deviation and size of each group were recorded. Missing means and standard deviations were directly calculated by using information available in the article when possible. Non-placebo-controlled studies were compared to a virtual placebo sample, whose mean and standard deviation were derived by the weighted mean of means and standard deviations of all placebo samples. Methodological quality of studies, heterogeneity, publication bias, and effect of treatment duration were systematically controlled. Quantitative results evidenced that amitriptyline, mirtazapine, and paroxetine were associated with a greater risk of weight gain. In contrast, some weight loss occurs with fluoxetine and bupropion, although the effect of fluoxetine appears to be limited to the acute phase of treatment. Other compounds have no transient or negligible effect on body weight in the short term. However, the effect of each antidepressant may vary greatly depending on an individual's characteristics and generally became more evident in the long term to a variable degree across compounds. Despite the fact that some analyses were done on only a few studies due to the difficulty of finding reliable information in literature, to our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to allow comparison of different antidepressants as regards their impact on body weight. Data presented may be helpful for a more accurate treatment selection in patients at risk of obesity or related medical illness. © Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The expert consensus guideline series: adherence problems in patients with serious and persistent mental illness.

              Poor adherence to medication treatment can have devastating consequences for patients with mental illness. The goal of this project was to develop recommendations for addressing adherence problems to improve patient outcomes. The editors identified important topics and questions concerning medication adherence problems in serious mental illness that are not fully addressed in the literature. A survey was developed containing 39 questions (521 options) asking about defining nonadherence, extent of adherence problems in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, risk factors for nonadherence, assessment methods, and interventions for specific types of adherence problems. The survey was completed by 41 (85%) of the 48 experts to whom it was sent. Results of the literature review and survey were used to develop recommendations for assessing and improving adherence in patients with serious mental illness. ASSESSING ADHERENCE: The experts endorsed percentage of medication not taken as the preferred method of defining adherence, with 80% or more of medication taken endorsed as an appropriate cut-off for adherence in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Although self- and physician report are the most common methods used to assess adherence in clinical settings, they are often inaccurate and may underestimate nonadherence. The experts recommend that, if possible, clinicians also use more objective measures (e.g., pill counts, pharmacy records, and, when appropriate, serum levels such as are used for lithium). Use of a validated self-report scale may help improve accuracy. The majority of the experts believed the average patient with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in their practices takes only 51%-70% of prescribed medication. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH NONADHERENCE: The experts endorsed poor insight and lack of illness awareness, distress associated with specific side effects or a general fear of side effects, inadequate efficacy with persistent symptoms, and believing medications are no longer needed as the most important factors leading to adherence problems in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The experts considered weight gain a side effect that is very likely to lead to adherence problems in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; sedation was considered a more important contributor to adherence problems in bipolar disorder than schizophrenia. The experts rated persistent positive or negative symptoms in schizophrenia and persistent grandiosity and manic symptoms in bipolar disorder as the most important symptomatic contributors to adherence problems in these illnesses. It is important to identify the specific factors that may be contributing to a patient's adherence problems in order to customize interventions to target those problems. Multiple problems may be involved, requiring a combination of interventions. Adherence problems are complex and multidetermined. The experts recommended customized interventions focused on the underlying causes. (c) Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: doctoral researcher
                Role: psychological wellbeing practitioner
                Role: senior lecturer in biostatistics
                Role: professor of medical psychology, and deputy head of department of psychiatry
                Role: professor of affective neuroscience
                Role: professor of mood disorders
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                27 March 2019
                : 364
                : l1079
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London SE5 8AF, UK
                [2 ]South London and Maudsley Foundation NHS Trust, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
                [4 ]Department of Psychiatry and Division of Medical Psychology, University of Bonn Medical Centre, Bonn, Germany
                [5 ]School of Psychology, College of Applied Health and Communities, University of East London, London, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Affective Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J Mutz julian.mutz@ 123456gmail.com (or @julianmutz on Twitter)
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5308-1957
                Article
                mutj047236
                10.1136/bmj.l1079
                6435996
                30917990
                70eb6b06-caef-4ef7-8517-c21c05b80359
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 28 February 2019
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article