Outcome differences between males and females undergoing deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) occurs more commonly in women. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an emerging treatment for TRD, and its efficacy continues to be explored. However, differences in treatment outcomes between males and females have yet to be explored in formal analysis. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of DBS for TRD studies was conducted. Patient-level data were independently extracted by two authors. Treatment response was defined as a 50 % or greater reduction in depression score. Percent change in depression scores by gender were evaluated using random-effects analyses. RESULTS: Of 737 records, 19 studies (129 patients) met inclusion criteria. The mean reduction in depression score for females was 57.7 % (95 % CI, 64.33 %-51.13 %), whereas for males it was 35.2 % (95 % CI, 45.12 %-25.23 %) (p < 0.0001). Females were more likely to respond to DBS for TRD when compared to males (OR = 2.44, 95 % CI 1.06, 1.95). These differences varied in significance when stratified by DBS anatomical target, age, and timeframe for responder classification. LIMITATIONS: Studies included were open-label trials with small sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females with TRD respond at higher rates to DBS treatment than males. Further research is needed to elucidate the implications of these results, which may include connectomic sexual dimorphism, depression phenotype variations, or unrecognized symptom reporting differences. Methodological standardization of outcome scales, granular demographic data, and individual subject outcomes would allow for more robust comparisons between trials.

Trends in Spinal Orthosis Utilization Among Patients Insured through Medicare Part B.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective population-based database analysis from the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Medicare/Medicaid Dataset. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive analysis of trends in spinal orthosis utilization over a 12-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Widespread prescription of spinal orthosis persists, despite evidence suggesting equivocal efficacy in many spinal conditions. The utilization of spinal orthosis on a national level, including prescribing specialty data, has not been previously analyzed. METHODS: Healthcare common procedure coding system (HCPCS) codes for cervical (CO), thoracic-lumbar-sacral (TLSO), lumbar (LO), lumbar-sacral (LSO), and cervical-thoracic-lumbar-sacral (CTLSO) orthosis were used to determine spinal orthosis utilization from 2010 to 2021. Provider specialty codes were utilized to compare trends between select specialties. Additionally, a neurosurgical CO analysis, based on subclassifications of cervical bracing, was performed. Linear trendlines were implemented to elucidate and present trends by slope (ß). RESULTS: Among 332,241 claims, decreases in CO (ß=-0.3387), TLSO (ß=-0.0942), LO (ß=-0.3485), and LSO (ß=-0.1545) per 100,000 Medicare Part B enrollees and CTLSO (ß=-0.052) per 1,000,000 Medicare Part B enrollees were observed. Decreases among neurosurgery (ß=-7.9208), family medicine (ß=-1.0097), emergency medicine (ß=-2.1958), internal medicine (ß=-1.1151), interventional pain management (ß=-5.0945), and chiropractic medicine (ß=-49.012), and increases among orthopedic surgery (ß=5.5891), pain management (ß=30.416), physical medicine and rehabilitation (ß=4.6524), general practice (ß=79.111), and osteopathic manipulative medicine (ß=45.303) in total spinal orthosis use per 100,000 specialty claims were observed. Analysis on subclassifications of cervical orthosis among neurosurgeons revealed decreases in flexible (ß=-1.7641), semi-rigid (ß=-0.6157), and collar bracing (ß=-2.7603), and an increase in multi-post collar bracing (ß=2.2032) per 100 neurosurgical cervical orthosis claims. CONCLUSIONS: While utilization of spinal orthosis decreased between 2010-2021, increased utilization was observed among a subset of specialties. Identifying these specialties allows for focused research and educational efforts to minimize unnecessary durable medical equipment use for effective healthcare spending.