A naturalistic, multi-site study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was approved in 2008 in the United States, and there are relatively few studies describing its use in regular clinical practice since approval. METHODS: From April 2011 to October 2014, ten sites within the National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC) provided data on 62 evaluable patients with a depressive episode. Treatment was determined naturalistically. Response was assessed by the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, Self-Report (QIDS-SR) as the primary outcome, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the clinician-rated Clinical Global Impression (CGI) as secondary depression measures. RESULTS: Enrolled patients exhibited significant treatment resistance, with 70.2% reporting more than 4 prior depressive episodes. Most patients received treatment with standard parameters (10Hz over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), although 22.6% of the patients received 1 or 5Hz stimulation at some point. Over 6 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 29.4% and 5.9%, respectively, for the QIDS-SR; 39.2% and 15.7%, respectively, for the PHQ-9; and 50.9% and 17.9%, respectively, for the CGI. Moderator analyses revealed no effect of prior depressive episodes, history of ECT or gender, although early life stress predicted a better response to rTMS therapy. LIMITATIONS: The study was an open-label, registry trial, with relatively coarse clinical data, reflecting practice only in academic, depression-specialty centers. Because of the relatively small size and heterogeneity of the sample, type 2 errors are possible and positive findings are in need of replication. CONCLUSION: rTMS demonstrates effectiveness in clinical practice within the NNDC, although remission rates appear slightly lower in comparison with other recent naturalistic studies.

Adjunctive lisdexamfetamine in bipolar depression: a preliminary randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine (LDX) in the treatment of bipolar depression. Twenty-five outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder and syndromal depression despite at least 4 weeks of stable mood stabilizer and/or antipsychotic therapy were randomized to receive LDX (N=11) or placebo (N=14) in an 8-week, prospective, parallel-group, double-blind study. In the primary longitudinal analysis, LDX and placebo produced similar rates of improvement in depressive symptoms as assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale. However, LDX was associated with a statistically significantly greater rate of improvement in self-reported depressive symptoms and daytime sleepiness, and with greater reductions in fasting levels of low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol. In the secondary baseline-to-endpoint analysis, LDX was associated with statistically significant improvements in self-reported measures of depression, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and binge eating, as well as with improvements in fasting levels of triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol. LDX was well tolerated and was not associated with any serious adverse events, but there was one case of suspected misuse. The small sample size (because of premature study termination by the funding sponsor) may have limited the detection of important drug-placebo differences. Larger studies on the use of psychostimulants for treatment of bipolar depression seem warranted.