AUTHOR=Cao Xu , Deng Chunshan , Su Xiaolin , Guo Yi
TITLE=Response and Remission Rates Following High-Frequency vs. Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Over Right DLPFC for Treating Major Depressive Disorder (MDD): A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind Trials
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Psychiatry
VOLUME=9
YEAR=2018
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00413
DOI=10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00413
ISSN=1664-0640
ABSTRACT=Background: High-frequency (HF) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) is the most widely applied treatment protocol for major depressive disorder (MDD), while low-frequency (LF) rTMS over the right DLPFC (R-DLPFC) also exhibits similar, if not better, efficacy for MDD. Therefore, a meta-analysis is warranted to compare the efficacy of the two protocols for MDD.
Method: We searched the literature from 1990 through to August 1, 2017 using MEDLINE, and the literature from 1995 through to August 1, 2017 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT). We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of HF rTMS over the L-DLPFC and LF rTMS over the R-DLPFC for MDD, which used response and/or remission rates as the primary endpoints, with and without sham-controlled.
Results: (1) The meta-analysis of the response rates was based on 12 studies, including 361 patients with MDD (175 for HF (> 5 Hz) over the L-DLPFC, and 186 for LF (<5 Hz) over the R-DLPFC; odds ratio = 1.08; 95%, confidence interval = 0.88–1.34). (2) The meta-analysis of the remission rate was based on 5 studies, including 131 MDD patients (64 for HF over the L-DLPFC and 67 for LF over the R-DLPFC; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.54–3.10).
Conclusion: Both HF rTMS over the L-DLPFC and LF over the R-DLPFC demonstrated similar therapeutic efficacy for the treatment of patients with MDD. The results suggested that further investigation on treatment efficacy indicators before/during treatment is necessary and helpful for optimizing a personalized protocol for patients.