重复经颅磁刺激治疗耐药抑郁症后的治疗预期和临床效果。

IF 7.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Adriano Mollica , Enoch Ng , Matthew J. Burke , Sean M. Nestor , Hyewon Lee , Jennifer S. Rabin , Clement Hamani , Nir Lipsman , Peter Giacobbe
{"title":"重复经颅磁刺激治疗耐药抑郁症后的治疗预期和临床效果。","authors":"Adriano Mollica ,&nbsp;Enoch Ng ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Burke ,&nbsp;Sean M. Nestor ,&nbsp;Hyewon Lee ,&nbsp;Jennifer S. Rabin ,&nbsp;Clement Hamani ,&nbsp;Nir Lipsman ,&nbsp;Peter Giacobbe","doi":"10.1016/j.brs.2024.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patient expectations, including both positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) effects, influence treatment outcomes, yet their impact on acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this single-center retrospective chart review, 208 TRD patients completed the Stanford Expectation of Treatment Scale (SETS) before starting open-label rTMS treatment. Patients were offered two excitatory rTMS protocols (deep TMS or intermittent theta-burst stimulation), which stimulated the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. A minimum of 20 once daily treatments were provided, delivered over 4–6 weeks. Primary outcomes were 1) remission, measured by a post-treatment score of &lt;8 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and 2) premature discontinuation. The change in HAMD-17 scores over time was used as a secondary outcome. Physicians were blinded to SETS scores. Logistic and linear regression, adjusting for covariates, assessed SETS and HAMD-17 relationships.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 208 patients, 177 had baseline and covariate data available. The mean positivity bias score (positive expectancy minus negative expectancy subscale averages) was 0.48 ± 2.21, indicating the cohort was neutral regarding the expectations of their treatment on average. Higher positive expectancy scores were significantly associated with greater odds of remission (OR = 1.90, p = 0.003) and greater reduction in HAMD-17 scores (β = 1.30, p = 0.005) at the end of acute treatment, after adjusting for covariates. Negative expectancy was not associated with decreased odds of remission (p = 0.2) or treatment discontinuation (p = 0.8).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Higher pre-treatment positive expectations were associated with greater remission rates with open-label rTMS in a naturalistic cohort of patients with TRD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9206,"journal":{"name":"Brain Stimulation","volume":"17 4","pages":"Pages 752-759"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X24001128/pdfft?md5=a72348b8e9603ba958d7a5ab4386f50c&pid=1-s2.0-S1935861X24001128-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment expectations and clinical outcomes following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression\",\"authors\":\"Adriano Mollica ,&nbsp;Enoch Ng ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Burke ,&nbsp;Sean M. Nestor ,&nbsp;Hyewon Lee ,&nbsp;Jennifer S. Rabin ,&nbsp;Clement Hamani ,&nbsp;Nir Lipsman ,&nbsp;Peter Giacobbe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.brs.2024.06.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patient expectations, including both positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) effects, influence treatment outcomes, yet their impact on acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this single-center retrospective chart review, 208 TRD patients completed the Stanford Expectation of Treatment Scale (SETS) before starting open-label rTMS treatment. Patients were offered two excitatory rTMS protocols (deep TMS or intermittent theta-burst stimulation), which stimulated the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. A minimum of 20 once daily treatments were provided, delivered over 4–6 weeks. Primary outcomes were 1) remission, measured by a post-treatment score of &lt;8 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and 2) premature discontinuation. The change in HAMD-17 scores over time was used as a secondary outcome. Physicians were blinded to SETS scores. Logistic and linear regression, adjusting for covariates, assessed SETS and HAMD-17 relationships.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 208 patients, 177 had baseline and covariate data available. The mean positivity bias score (positive expectancy minus negative expectancy subscale averages) was 0.48 ± 2.21, indicating the cohort was neutral regarding the expectations of their treatment on average. Higher positive expectancy scores were significantly associated with greater odds of remission (OR = 1.90, p = 0.003) and greater reduction in HAMD-17 scores (β = 1.30, p = 0.005) at the end of acute treatment, after adjusting for covariates. Negative expectancy was not associated with decreased odds of remission (p = 0.2) or treatment discontinuation (p = 0.8).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Higher pre-treatment positive expectations were associated with greater remission rates with open-label rTMS in a naturalistic cohort of patients with TRD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain Stimulation\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 752-759\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X24001128/pdfft?md5=a72348b8e9603ba958d7a5ab4386f50c&pid=1-s2.0-S1935861X24001128-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain Stimulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X24001128\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Stimulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X24001128","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者的期望,包括积极(安慰剂)和消极(消极)效应,会影响治疗结果,但它们对急性重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)治疗耐药抑郁症(TRD)的影响尚不清楚:在这项单中心回顾性病历审查中,208 名 TRD 患者在开始开放标签经颅磁刺激治疗前填写了斯坦福治疗期望量表(SETS)。患者可接受两种兴奋性经颅磁刺激方案(深部经颅磁刺激或间歇性θ-脉冲刺激),刺激左侧背外侧前额叶皮层。每天至少进行 20 次治疗,每次治疗持续 4-6 周。主要结果为:1)缓解,以治疗后评分结果来衡量:在 208 名患者中,177 人有基线和协变量数据。积极性偏差平均分(积极期望值减去消极期望值的子量表平均分)为 0.48 ± 2.21,表明患者平均对治疗的期望是中性的。在调整协变量后,较高的积极期望得分与较高的缓解几率(OR = 1.90,p = 0.003)和急性期治疗结束时较高的 HAMD-17 评分降低率(β = 1.30,p = 0.005)显著相关。消极期望与缓解几率下降(p = 0.2)或治疗中断(p = 0.8)无关:结论:在TRD患者的自然队列中,治疗前较高的积极预期与开放标签经颅磁刺激治疗的较高缓解率有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment expectations and clinical outcomes following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression

Background

Patient expectations, including both positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) effects, influence treatment outcomes, yet their impact on acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is unclear.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective chart review, 208 TRD patients completed the Stanford Expectation of Treatment Scale (SETS) before starting open-label rTMS treatment. Patients were offered two excitatory rTMS protocols (deep TMS or intermittent theta-burst stimulation), which stimulated the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. A minimum of 20 once daily treatments were provided, delivered over 4–6 weeks. Primary outcomes were 1) remission, measured by a post-treatment score of <8 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and 2) premature discontinuation. The change in HAMD-17 scores over time was used as a secondary outcome. Physicians were blinded to SETS scores. Logistic and linear regression, adjusting for covariates, assessed SETS and HAMD-17 relationships.

Results

Of 208 patients, 177 had baseline and covariate data available. The mean positivity bias score (positive expectancy minus negative expectancy subscale averages) was 0.48 ± 2.21, indicating the cohort was neutral regarding the expectations of their treatment on average. Higher positive expectancy scores were significantly associated with greater odds of remission (OR = 1.90, p = 0.003) and greater reduction in HAMD-17 scores (β = 1.30, p = 0.005) at the end of acute treatment, after adjusting for covariates. Negative expectancy was not associated with decreased odds of remission (p = 0.2) or treatment discontinuation (p = 0.8).

Conclusions

Higher pre-treatment positive expectations were associated with greater remission rates with open-label rTMS in a naturalistic cohort of patients with TRD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brain Stimulation
Brain Stimulation 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
256
审稿时长
72 days
期刊介绍: Brain Stimulation publishes on the entire field of brain stimulation, including noninvasive and invasive techniques and technologies that alter brain function through the use of electrical, magnetic, radiowave, or focally targeted pharmacologic stimulation. Brain Stimulation aims to be the premier journal for publication of original research in the field of neuromodulation. The journal includes: a) Original articles; b) Short Communications; c) Invited and original reviews; d) Technology and methodological perspectives (reviews of new devices, description of new methods, etc.); and e) Letters to the Editor. Special issues of the journal will be considered based on scientific merit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信