RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Treatment effect variation in brain stimulation across psychiatric disorders
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.02.20088831
DO 10.1101/2020.05.02.20088831
A1 Stephanie Winkelbeiner
A1 Whitney Muscat
A1 Andrea Joanlanne
A1 Nikolaos Marousis
A1 Stefan Vetter
A1 Erich Seifritz
A1 Thomas Dierks
A1 Philipp Homan
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/06/2020.05.02.20088831.abstract
AB Noninvasive brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are promising add-on treatments for a number of psychiatric conditions. Yet, some of the initial excitement is wearing off. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) have found inconsistent results. This inconsistency is suspected to be the consequence of variation in treatment effects and solvable by identifying responders in RCTs and individualizing treatment. However, is there enough evidence from RCTs that patients do indeed respond differently to treatment? This question can be addressed by comparing the variability in the active stimulation group with the variability in the sham group across studies.We searched MEDLINE/PubMed and included all double-blinded, sham-controlled RCTs and crossover trials that used TMS or tDCS in adults with a unipolar or bipolar depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or obsessive compulsive disorder. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to ensure data quality and validity, we extracted a measure of variability of the primary outcome.A total of 114 studies with 5005 patients were considered in the analysis. We calculated variance-weighted variability ratios for each comparison of active versus sham stimulation and entered them into a random-effects model. We hypothesized that treatment effect variation in TMS or tDCS would be reflected by increased variability after active compared with sham stimulation, or in other words, a variability ratio greater than one.Across diagnoses, we found a slight increase in variability after active stimulation compared with sham (variability ratio = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11, P = 0.012). This effect was likely driven by studies in patients with schizophrenia who received rTMS compared with sham (variability ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.2, P = 0.007).In conclusion, this study found evidence for treatment effect variation in brain stimulation, particularly for studies in schizophrenia. The extent of this variation, however, was modest, suggesting that the need for personalized or stratified medicine is still an open question.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementPH is supported by a NARSAD grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation (28445) and by a Research Grant from the Novartis Foundation (20A058).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and code are freely available online to ensure reproducibility (https://osf.io/6w947/). This study was pre-registered on the Open Science Forum platform (https://osf.io/8uxec). https://osf.io/6w947/