佐久間 健二

In clinical practice, theta burst stimulation (TBS) presents as a more efficient and potentially more effective therapeutic modality than conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as it allows for the delivery of more stimuli in less time and at similar intensities. To date, accelerated treatment plans according to various continuous (cTBS) and intermittent TBS (iTBS) protocols for depression have been proposed. To investigate which of the TBS protocols provided a favorable risk-benefit balance for individuals with depression, this systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted. The study outcomes included response rate (primary), depression symptom improvement, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation rate, incidence of switch to mania, and incidence of headache/discomfort at treatment site. In this meta-analysis, a total of 23 randomized controlled trials (n = 960, mean age = 41.88 years, with 60.78% females) were included. Approximately 69.57% of the trials included individuals with an exclusive diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The following six TBS protocols (target) were evaluated: cTBS (right-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [R-DLPFC]), cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (left-DLPFC [L-DLPFC]), iTBS (L-DLPFC), iTBS (L-DLPFC) + iTBS (R-DLPFC), iTBS (left-dorsomedial prefrontal cortex) + iTBS (right-dorsomedial prefrontal cortex), and iTBS (occipital lobe). Compared to sham, cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC), iTBS (L-DLPFC), and iTBS (occipital lobe) had a higher response rate (k = 23); cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC) and iTBS (L-DLPFC) dominated in the depression symptom improvement (k = 23); and iTBS (L-DLPFC) had a higher remission rate (k = 15). No significant differences were found for all-cause discontinuation rate (k = 17), incidence of switch to mania (k = 7), and incidence of headache/discomfort at treatment site (k = 10) between any TBS protocols and sham. Thus, cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC) and iTBS (L-DLPFC) demonstrate favorable risk-benefit balance for the treatment of depression.

Aim: This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis used random-effects models is conducted to determine whether there are differences in the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety profiles of brexpiprazole (BRE) and aripiprazole (ARI) for Japanese with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were inadequately responsive to antidepressants. Methods: Outcome measures were scores on the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (primary), the Clinical Global Impression severity scale, and social functioning scale; the non-response rate; the non-remission rate; all-cause discontinuation; discontinuation due to adverse events (DAE); at least one adverse event (1AE); serious adverse event, akathisia; tremor; weight gain. Results: A literature search identified three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. These comprised one BRE study (with a 1 mg/day [BRE1] and a 2 mg/day [BRE2]) and two ARI studies (with a 3 mg/day arm and a flexible-dose arm[within the dosage range approved in Japan]) (n = 1736). Both BRE and ARI demonstrated better efficacy than the placebo. BRE but not ARI had a higher DAE than the placebo. ARI but not BRE had a higher 1AE than the placebo. BRE and ARI had a higher risk of akathisia and weight gain than the placebo. There were no significant differences between BRE and ARI for any of the outcomes. Although BRE1 had good efficacy, it carried risk of weight gain. Although BRE2 also had efficacy, it carried risks of DAE, akathisia, and weight gain. However, the risk of akathisia in BRE2 was reduced by an initial dose of 0.5 mg/day rather than 1.0 mg/day. Conclusions: Overall BRE showed similar utility to ARI and a good risk–benefit balance.

AIM: To update the major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment guidelines of the Japanese Society of Mood Disorders, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of available antidepressants in Japan for older adults with MDD. METHODS: Outcome measures included response rate (primary), improvement in depressive symptom scale score, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and at least one adverse event. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Nine double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 2145) were identified. No study has been conducted in Japan. Our meta-analysis included the following antidepressants: duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. Antidepressants have significantly higher response rates than placebo (RR [95% CI] = 1.38 [1.04, 1.83], p = 0.02). Antidepressants outperformed placebo in terms of improving depressive symptom scale score (SMD [95% CI] = -0.62 [-0.92, -0.33], p < 0.0001). However, antidepressants were associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events (RR [95% CI] = 1.94 [1.30, 2.88], p = 0.001) and a higher incidence of at least one adverse event (RR [95% CI] = 1.11 [1.02, 1.21], p = 0.02) compared to placebo. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of remission rate or all-cause discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis concluded that treatment with antidepressants available in Japan is only weakly recommended for moderate to severe MDD in older adults.

The benefits of serotonin 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3R-As) in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) treatment remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to perform a systematic review and a random-effects meta-analysis, including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs). The outcomes include the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) total score (primary), Y-BOCS obsession subscale score, Y-BOCS compulsive subscale score, treatment response, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation, and incidence of individual adverse events (nervousness/restlessness/anxiety, insomnia, headache, dizziness/lightheadedness, decreased appetite, constipation, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, dry mouth, sweating/increased perspiration, itching/pruritus, tremor, and sexual dysfunction/decreased libido). The mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Our study included 10 DBRPCTs (n = 628). Pooled 5-HT3R-As outperformed placebo regarding Y-BOCS total score (MD = -5.08, 95% CI = -7.04, -3.12, N = 9, n = 560), Y-BOCS obsession subscale score, Y-BOCS compulsive subscale score, treatment response, and remission rate. Individually, all 5-HT3R-As outperformed placebo regarding Y-BOCS total score (granisetron: MD = -5.59, 95% CI = -8.79, -2.39, N = 3, n = 178, ondansetron: MD = -5.72, 95% CI = -8.06, -3.37, N = 6, n = 331, tropisetron: MD = -2.87, 95% CI = -5.19, -0.550, N = 1, n = 96). However, all-cause discontinuation and incidence of individual adverse events between pooled 5-HT3R-As and placebo were not significantly different. In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggested 5-HT3R-As as efficacious for symptom improvement in individuals with OCD. However, the number of individuals included in each study was small; thus, a replication randomized trial of 5-HT3R-As should be conducted using a larger sample size.