A prospective international multi-center study on safety and efficacy of deep brain stimulation for resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been proposed for severe, chronic, treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients. Although serious adverse events can occur, only a few studies report on the safety profile of DBS for psychiatric disorders. In a prospective, open-label, interventional multi-center study, we examined the safety and efficacy of electrical stimulation in 30 patients with DBS electrodes bilaterally implanted in the anterior limb of the internal capsule. Safety, efficacy, and functionality assessments were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months post implant. An independent Clinical Events Committee classified and coded all adverse events (AEs) according to EN ISO14155:2011. All patients experienced AEs (195 in total), with the majority of these being mild (52% of all AEs) or moderate (37%). Median time to resolution was 22 days for all AEs and the etiology with the highest AE incidence was 'programming/stimulation' (in 26 patients), followed by 'New illness, injury, condition' (13 patients) and 'pre-existing condition, worsening or exacerbation' (11 patients). Sixteen patients reported a total of 36 serious AEs (eight of them in one single patient), mainly transient anxiety and affective symptoms worsening (20 SAEs). Regarding efficacy measures, Y-BOCS reduction was 42% at 12 months and the responder rate was 60%. Improvements in GAF, CGI, and EuroQol-5D index scores were also observed. In sum, although some severe AEs occurred, most AEs were mild or moderate, transient and related to programming/stimulation and tended to resolve by adjustment of stimulation. In a severely treatment-resistant population, this open-label study supports that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of DBS.

Cognitive outcome after ventral capsule/ventral striatum stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression.

BACKGROUND: We report the neuropsychological outcome of 25 patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (TRD) who participated in an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved randomised double-blind trial comparing active to sham deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the anterior limb of the ventral capsule/ventral striatum (VC/VS). METHODS: Participants were randomised to active (n=12) versus sham (n=13) DBS for 16 weeks. Data were analysed at the individual and group levels. Group differences were analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs. Relationships between depression severity and cognition were examined using partial correlations. The false discovery rate method controlled for multiple analyses. RESULTS: No significant interactions comparing active versus sham stimulation over time were evident. Change in depression was unrelated to change in neuropsychological measures. Twenty patients declined by ≥1 SD on at least one measure (41.3% of declines occurred in active group participants; 63.0% in older participants regardless of stimulation status). Twenty-two patients exhibited improvements >1 SD on neuropsychological measures (47.7% in the active group; 63.1% in younger participants). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that VC/VS DBS in patients with TRD does not significantly affect neuropsychological function. Age at surgery, regardless of stimulation status, may be related to cognitive outcome at the individual patient level. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00837486; Results.

A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of Deep Brain Stimulation of the Ventral Capsule/Ventral Striatum for Chronic Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: Multiple open-label trials of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), including those targeting the ventral capsule/ventral striatum target, have shown encouraging response rates. However, no randomized controlled trials of DBS for TRD have been published. METHODS: Thirty patients with TRD participated in a sham-controlled trial of DBS at the ventral capsule/ventral striatum target for TRD. Patients were randomized to active versus sham DBS treatment in a blinded fashion for 16 weeks, followed by an open-label continuation phase. The primary outcome measure was response, defined as a 50% or greater improvement on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale from baseline. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rates between the active (3 of 15 subjects; 20%) and control (2 of 14 subjects; 14.3%) treatment arms and no significant difference between change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores as a continuous measure upon completion of the 16-week controlled phase of the trial. The response rates at 12, 18, and 24 months during the open-label continuation phase were 20%, 26.7%, and 23.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this first randomized controlled study of DBS for the treatment of TRD did not demonstrate a significant difference in response rates between the active and control groups at the end of the 16-week controlled phase. However, a range of 20% to 26.7% of patients did achieve response at any time during the open-label continuation phase. Future studies, perhaps utilizing alternative study designs and stimulation parameters, are needed.

The economic effect of hypoglycemia in a health plan.

This study was undertaken to determine the incidence and economic cost of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes taking insulin in a large mid-western health plan. Analysis of claims data identified 7,659 members with a diagnostic code for either type 1 or type 2 diabetes during a seven-year interval from 1992 to 1998. A total of 2,118 were prescribed some type of insulin regimen. During the six years of follow-up, more than 16% of insulin-treated patients experienced hypoglycemia profound enough to warrant medical attention. The mean cost per episode was $1,186 (range, $181-$4,924) or $7.04 per patient per month. Although the financial burden is smaller than that of late complications of diabetes, hypoglycemia associated with insulin therapy is associated with significant costs to the health care system.