4.2 Article

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in combination with escitalopram in patients with treatment-resistant major depression. A double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial

期刊

PHARMACOPSYCHIATRY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 41-47

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-993210

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The role of high-frequency rTMS over the left cortex as an add-on strategy in the treatment of major depression is still uncertain even in patients resistant to pharmacotherapy. We had planned a large sham TMS controlled study in the acute phase with a placebo-controlled relapse-prevention phase with escitalopram. However, because a recent meta-analysis showed only a small effect size of rTMS over sham TMS in the acute treatment phase of depressed patients, we decided to make an interim analysis. Method: In patients with medication-resistant major depression we administered in a randomised trial 15 sessions of sham-controlled rTMS over three weeks in combination with 20 mg escitalopram daily. After the last rTMS, the patients were followed for another 9 weeks on 20mg escitalopram daily. The antidepressant effect was measured by the HAM-D-6 as primary outcome scale. Results: A total of 45 patients with complete data were randomised so that 23 patients received sham TMS and 22 patients received active, high-frequency rTMS over the left cortex. Over the 3 weeks, the active rTMS treatment was superior to sham TMS with effect sizes on the HAM-D-6 above 0.70, which indicates not only a statistically but also a clinically significant effect. The patients had typically been through two failed antidepressant treatment attempts with non-tricyclics before inclusion in the study. Both the rTMS and escitalopram were well-tolerated. Conclusion: High-frequency rTMS over the left cortex is an add-on strategy of clinical significance in combination with escitalopram in patients with major depression resistant to nontricyclic antidepressants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据