Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.165271.
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Major depressive disorder (MDD) can benefit from novel interventions and personalization. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (Deep TMS) targeting the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) using the H1 Coil, was FDA-cleared for treatment of MDD, however recent preliminary data indicate that targeting medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) using the H7 Coil might induce as good or even better outcomes. Here we explored whether Deep TMS targeting the MPFC is non-inferior to targeting LPFC, and whether electrophysiological or clinical markers for patient selection can be identified. METHODS. The present prospective multicenter randomized study enrolled 169 MDD patients who failed antidepressant treatments in the current episode. Patients were randomized to receive 24 Deep TMS sessions over 6 weeks, using either the H1 Coil or the H7 Coil. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in the Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scores. RESULTS. Clinical efficacy and safety profiles were similar and not significantly different between groups, with response rates of 60.9% for the H1 Coil and 64.2% for the H7 Coil. Moreover, brain activity measured by EEG during the first treatment session correlated with clinical outcomes in a coil-specific manner, and a cluster of baseline clinical symptoms was found to potentially distinguish between patients who can benefit from each Deep TMS target. CONCLUSION. This study provides a new treatment option for MDD, using the H7 Coil, and initial guidance to differentiate between patients likely to respond to LPFC versus MPFC stimulation targets, which require further validation studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03012724. FUNDING. Brainsway Ltd.
Authors
Abraham Zangen, Samuel Zibman, Aron Tendler, Noam Barnea-Ygael, Uri Alyagon, Daniel M. Blumberger, Geoffrey Grammer, Hadar Shalev, Tatiana Gulevsky, Tanya Vapnik, Alexander Bystritsky, Igor Filipčić, David Feifel, Ahava Stein, Frederic Deutsch, Yiftach Roth, Mark S. George
Usage data is cumulative from January 2023 through February 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 516 | 0 |
| 131 | 0 | |
| Supplemental data | 26 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 16 | 0 |
| Totals | 689 | 0 |
| Total Views | 689 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
