Antidepressant class and concurrent rTMS outcomes in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is frequently used as an adjunctive treatment with antidepressants for depression. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of antidepressant classes when administered concurrently with rTMS for the management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 12th 2024 for terms relating to medication, depression, and rTMS and appraised by 2 independent screeners. All randomized clinical trials that prospectively evaluated a specific antidepressant adjunctively with sham rTMS as a control in MDD were included. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023418435). The primary outcome measure assessed symptomatic improvement measured by formal depression scales. We used a random-effects model with pooled Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs) and log odds ratios (OR). All studies were assessed for their methodological quality and bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool version 2 (RoB2). Findings 14 articles from 5376 identified studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was only sufficient trial data to evaluate the effects of rTMS and combination therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Across studies, 848 participants (mean [SD] age:41.1 [18.7] years for SSRIs, 51.8 [3.8] years for SNRIs) prospectively examined the efficacy of antidepressant medication with rTMS. Combining rTMS with SSRIs led to significantly lower depression scores, (SMD [CI] of −0.65 [−0.98, −0.31], p = 0.0002, I 2 = 66.1%), higher response (OR = 0.97 [0.50, 1.44], p < 0.0001, I 2 = 25.33%) and remission rates (OR = 1.04 [0.55, 1.52], p < 0.0001, I 2 = 0.00%) than medication with sham rTMS. No additive benefit was found for SNRIs with rTMS (SMD of 0.10 [−0.14, 0.34], p = 0.42, I 2 = 0.00%; OR = 0.12 [−0.39, 0.62], p = 0.64, I 2 = 0.00%; OR = −0.31 [−0.90, 0.28], p = 0.86, I 2 = 39.9%). The overall risk of bias for the included studies ranged from low to high, with 1 study having a high risk of bias. Interpretation The combination of rTMS with SSRIs, but not SNRIs, significantly reduced depression severity, increasing response and remission rates. Some analyses demonstrated high heterogeneity, which was influenced by an SSRI trial with a high effect size. Overall, these results suggest that not all antidepressant combination therapies are alike, and SSRIs should be considered when initiating rTMS. Funding Donald T. Stuss Young Investigator Research Innovation Award from the Sandra Black Centre for Brain Resilience & Recovery and the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation through the Sunnybrook Foundation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».