4.5 Review

Treatment-emergent mania in unipolar and bipolar depression: focus on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1461145707007699

关键词

bipolar disorders; depression; major depressive disorders; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS); treatment-emergent mania/hypomania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focused on the treatment-emergent mania/hypomania (TEM) associated with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment of depression. English-language literature published from 1966-2006 and indexed in Medline was searched. Ten of 53 randomized controlled trials on rTMS treatment of depression specifically addressed TEM. The pooled TEM rate is 0.84% for the active treatment group and 0.73% for the sham group. The difference is not statistically significant. Along with case reports, a total of 13 cases of TEM associated with rTMS treatment of depression have been published. Most of these patients were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and the majority of patients experiencing TEM took medication concurrent with rTMS. The parameters of rTMS used in these cases were scattered over the spectrum of major parameters explored in previous studies. Most train durations and intervals were within the published safety guidelines of the field. Reducing the frequency of sessions from two per day to one per day might be associated with a lower likelihood of TEM recurrence. The severity of manic symptoms varied significantly, but all cases responded to treatment that included a decrease or discontinuation of antidepressant and/or rTMS treatment and/or use of anti-manic medication. Current data suggests that rTMS treatment carries a slight risk of TEM that is not statistically higher than that associated with sham treatment. More systematic studies are needed to better understand TEM associated with rTMS. Special precautions and measures should be adopted to prevent, monitor, and manage TEM in research and practice.

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

4.5
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