Efficacy and Safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Deep Brain Stimulation: Literature Review, Case Report for Patient With Essential Tremor, and Practical Recommendations.

AIM: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has proven to be an effective therapy of some treatment-resistant psychiatric disorders and movement disorders. Comorbid depressive symptoms are common and difficult to manage. Treatment with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may be required. There are few published cases describing the safety and efficacy of ECT for patients with DBS implants, and there are no available guidelines for administration of ECT in patients with DBS and mood disorders. The current study had 3 aims: (i) to conduct a systematic review of case reports on patients with DBS implants who received ECT; (ii) to report the case of a 69-year-old man with a DBS implant for essential tremor, who required ECT; and (iii) to provide practical recommendations for ECT in patients with DBS implants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, of existing case reports on patients with DBS implants administered ECT for psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Our search yielded 25 cases of ECT in patients implanted with DBS systems. In addition, we here describe successful ECT management of major depressive disorder in a patient treated by DBS. We also set forth ECT management guidelines based on points of consensus. The 2 most important practical recommendations are to make sure the DBS system is set to 0 V and turned off before ECT, and to avoid sites near the DBS electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Electroconvulsive therapy may be an effective and safe treatment for DBS patients with MDD.

Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) versus 10 Hz high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to alleviate treatment-resistant unipolar depression: A randomized controlled trial (THETA-DEP).

BACKGROUND: Recently intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) proved to be non-inferior to conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (10 Hz rTMS) in unipolar depression after failure of one antidepressant trial, but to date no randomized control trial assessed the ability of iTBS to improve depression level and quality of life in more resistant features of depression with a long-term (6 month) follow-up in comparison to 10 Hz rTMS. OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of 10 Hz rTMS and iTBS in treatment-resistant unipolar depression on response rates (50% decrease of MADRS scores at one month from baseline) and change in quality of life during a 6-month follow-up. In addition, we investigated whether some clinical features at baseline were associated with the response in the different groups. METHOD: Sixty patients were randomized in a double-blind, controlled study at the University Hospital Center of Nantes, and received 20 sessions of either rTMS or iTBS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex targeted by neuronavigation. Statistical analysis used Fischer's exact test and Chi-square test as appropriate, linear mixed model, and logistic regression (occurrence of depressive relapse and factors associated with the therapeutic response). RESULTS: Included patients showed in mean more than 3 antidepressants trials. Response rates were 36.7% and 33.3%, and remission rates were 18.5% and 14.8%, in the iTBS and 10 Hz rTMS groups respectively. Both groups showed a similar significant reduction in depression scores and quality of life improvement at 6 months. We did not find any clinical predictive factor of therapeutic response in this sample. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the clinical interest of iTBS stimulation (which is more time saving and cost-effective as conventional rTMS) to provide long-lasting improvement of depression and quality of life in highly resistant unipolar depression.

Cost-utility analysis of curative and maintenance repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant unipolar depression: a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a debilitating and costly disease for our society, especially in the case of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective adjuvant therapy in treatment-resistant unipolar and non-psychotic depression. It can be applied according to two therapeutic strategies after an initial rTMS cure: a further rTMS cure can be performed at the first sign of relapse or recurrence, or systematic maintenance rTMS (M-rTMS) can be proposed. TMS adjuvant to treatment as usual (TAU) could improve long-term prognosis. However, no controlled study has yet compared the cost-effectiveness of these two additional rTMS therapeutic strategies versus TAU alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper focuses on the design of a health-economic, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study with three parallel arms carried out in France. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the adjunctive and maintenance low frequency rTMS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex versus TAU alone. A total of 318 patients suffering from a current TRD will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ratio costs / quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] measured by the Euroqol Five Dimension Questionnaire) over 12 months in a population of patients assigned to one of three arms: systematic M-rTMS for responders (arm A); additional new rTMS cure in case of mood deterioration among responders (arm B); and a placebo arm (arm C) in which responders are allocated in two subgroups: sham systematic M-rTMS and supplementary rTMS course in case of mood deterioration. ICER and QALYs will be compared between arm A or B versus arm C. The secondary endpoints in each three arms will be: ICER at 24 months; the cost-utility ratio analysis at 12 and 24 months; 5-year budget impact analysis; and prognosis factors of rTMS. The following criteria will be compared between arm A or B and arm C: rates of responders; remission and disease-free survival; clinical evolution; tolerance; observance; treatment modifications; hospitalization; suicide attempts; work stoppage; marital / professional statues; and quality of life at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: The purpose of our study is to check the cost-effectiveness of rTMS and we will discuss its economic impact over time. In the case of significant decrease in the depression costs and expenditures associated with a good long-term prognosis (sustained response and remission) and tolerance, rTMS could be considered as an efficient treatment within the armamentarium for resistant unipolar depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03701724. Registered on 10 October 2018. Protocol Amendment Version 2.0 accepted on 29 June 2019.

Cost-utility analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in non-treatment-resistant depression: the DISCO randomised controlled study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is among the most widespread psychiatric disorders in France. Psychiatric disorders are associated with considerable social costs, amounting to €22.6 billion for treatment and psychotropic medication in 2011. Treatment as usual (TAU), mainly consisting of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, is effective for only a third of patients and in most cases fails to prevent treatment resistance and chronicity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) consists in a non-invasive and painless application of low-intensity electric current to the cerebral cortex through the scalp. Having proved effective in depressed patients, it could be used in combination with TAU to great advantage. The objective is to compare, for the first time ever, the cost-utility of tDCS-TAU and of TAU alone for the treatment of a depressive episode that has been refractory to one or two drug treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper, based on the DISCO study protocol, focuses on the design of a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label multicentre economic study to be conducted in France. It will include 214 patients with unipolar or bipolar depression, assigning them to two parallel arms: group A (tDCS-TAU) and group B (TAU alone). The primary outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in cost between each strategy to the difference in their effects. Their effects will be expressed as numbers of quality-adjusted life-years, determined through administration of the EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire over a 12-month period to patients (EQ-5D-5L). Expected benefits are the reduction of treatment resistance and suicidal ideation as well as social and professional costs of depression. Should depression-related costs fall significantly, tDCS might be considered an efficient treatment for depression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by a French ethics committee, the CPP--Est IV (Comité de Protection des Personnes-Strasbourg). Data are to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RCB 2018-A00474-51; NCT03758105.