Long-Term Outcomes of Subcallosal Cingulate Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract
Objective:
Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate (SCC DBS) has been studied as a potential treatment for severe and refractory major depressive disorder since 2005. The authors used an open-label, long-term follow-up design to examine participants enrolled in a clinical trial of SCC DBS for treatment-resistant depression.
Methods:
Long-term outcome data were collected for 28 patients (20 with major depressive disorder and seven with bipolar II disorder; one patient in the major depression subgroup was later reclassified as having bipolar II disorder) receiving SCC DBS for 4–8 years.
Results:
Response and remission rates were maintained at ≥50% and ≥30%, respectively, through years 2–8 of the follow-up period. Three-quarters of all participants met the treatment-response criterion for more than half of their duration of participation in the study, with 21% of all patients demonstrating continuous response to treatment from the first year onward. Of 28 participants, 14 completed ≥8 years of follow-up, 11 completed ≥4 years, and three dropped out before 8 years. The procedure itself was generally safe and well tolerated, and there were no side effects of acute or chronic stimulation. The rate of medical or surgical complications was consistent with the rate observed in studies of DBS for other indications. There were no suicides.
Conclusions:
In >8 years of observation, most participants experienced a robust and sustained antidepressant response to SCC DBS.
The prevalence rate of depressive disorders is >300 million people worldwide, affecting more than 17 million persons in the United States, and these disorders are a significant cause of years lived with disability (1). Major depressive disorder is a recurrent, episodic illness, with each episode increasing the risk of future episodes by about 20% per year. Conversely, as the duration of recovery from a depressive episode increases, the risk of recurrence decreases, a phenomenon also observed in bipolar disorder (2, 3). Among patients with major depression, an estimated one-third have treatment-resistant depression (4). Typically defined as failure of symptoms to respond to two or more antidepressant trials, treatment-resistant depression carries high personal and societal costs. There is a strong relationship between treatment resistance and increased direct and indirect medical costs, with annual direct costs for patients ranging from $12,000 to $19,000 in the United States (5). Patients with treatment-resistant depression undergo more medication trials and hospitalizations, have higher rates of disability, and have higher rates of suicide (6, 7). In the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study, the rate of remission after two failed medication trials was 13.7%. Among those who did achieve remission, two-thirds relapsed within the first year (8). Among patients with highly treatment-resistant symptoms receiving treatment as usual and observed naturalistically for 2 years, only one-third experienced transient treatment response, and only 4% demonstrated a sustained remission from depression (9). Identifying treatments that alleviate treatment-resistant depression would have significant individual and societal benefits.
Treatments for treatment-resistant depression continue to evolve. ECT is a highly effective antidepressant treatment, even in patients for whom other interventions have failed, but relapse is common (10–12). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment-resistant depression; however, it is associated with notable relapse among patients who achieve remission (13–15). Vagus nerve stimulation, another FDA-approved treatment for treatment-resistant depression, is associated with response rates of 50%−70% over 1–2 years (16–18). In a large long-term study, 5-year vagus nerve stimulation outcomes demonstrated a 50% response rate within 1 year—this was about double the rate seen in patients receiving treatment as usual and lasted twice as long (18). However, patients receiving vagus nerve stimulation have typically shown nonresponse to only 2–4 antidepressant treatments and therefore do not represent patients with the most highly treatment-resistant symptoms (19).
Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate (SCC DBS) white matter has been investigated as a treatment for severe and highly refractory major depression since 2005 (20). Results have generally been favorable in small open-label trials. With combined results from 193 participants, these studies have shown a response rate of roughly 50%−60% at varying time points (with response defined as a ≥50% decrease in depression severity from baseline). Remission rates (defined by a cutoff on established depression rating scales) were 30%−40% over the same period (20–31). Long-term follow-up of the first cohort of 20 patients to receive this treatment showed a sustained treatment response up to 6 years following implantation (23). Despite these encouraging open-label results, a multicenter randomized sham-controlled trial was halted early because of a lack of statistically significant antidepressant response to active SCC DBS at the a priori 6-month time point. However, the open-label 18- and 24-month outcomes were more promising, demonstrating response rates near 50% (32). In total, these data suggest a treatment effect that increases and is sustained over time.
Given that patients with treatment-resistant depression are highly susceptible to recurrent depressive episodes, the ability of DBS or any treatment to support long-term maintenance of antidepressant response and prevention of relapse in severe and intractable depression would be an important treatment advance. In this study, we report long-term follow-up data (4–8 years) for 28 patients participating in a single-center open-label clinical trial of SCC DBS for treatment-resistant depression.
Methods
Participants and Clinical Trial Design
Twenty-eight participants underwent SCC DBS surgery between January 2007 and June 2013. The initial trial (22) aimed to enroll 20 patients and was later expanded (26). Seventeen participants had a 1-month single-blind sham-controlled lead-in period before active stimulation was initiated; the subsequent 11 patients had a 1-month open-label period with no stimulation before active stimulation was initiated. The data described here were collected through December 2017. All participants had the same surgeon (R.E.G.) and received the same device (St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Libra XP System, Austin, Tex.). Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been reported elsewhere (22, 26). Briefly, participants ages 18–70 years had to meet criteria for either major depressive disorder or bipolar II disorder and be in a current depressive episode of at least 12 months’ duration with nonresponse to at least three antidepressant treatments (at least four lifetime treatment failures), as well as have documentation of an evidence-based psychotherapy trial. ECT (lifetime) was a requirement, unless it was geographically unavailable or logistically prohibitive. Participants were required to have a score ≥20 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and a score <50 on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Exclusion criteria included a history of psychosis, personality disorders, or imminent risk for suicide. Participants were evaluated for inclusion by at least two psychiatrists.
Participants were seen by a study psychiatrist weekly for 32 weeks starting ≥4 weeks before surgery. Visits were then tapered to every 6 months for years 2–8 of the study. No medication changes were permitted for the first 6 months of chronic stimulation. When a patient’s implantable pulse generator was nearing the end of service, ambulatory surgery was scheduled to replace it. All participants who were active in the study between February 2015 and February 2016 received a rechargeable implantable pulse generator (St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Brio System). Adverse events were tracked and reported according to regulatory requirements. Written informed consent was obtained and reviewed and updated as needed.
Treatment Efficacy Over Time
Across all time points (6 months to 2 years), response was defined as a ≥50% decrease from baseline in the HAM-D score, and remission was defined as a score ≤7 (22, 26). The Illness Density Index (IDI) (33), a measure of area under the curve that can be applied to any behavioral scale measured longitudinally, was used as the primary outcome measure. Specifically, we used the Illness Density Index for depression (IDI-D), because depression severity was the outcome of interest measured for this study.
The IDI was developed to address the issue of measuring treatment response over extended periods, in which natural fluctuations are expected and prespecified or arbitrary endpoints (e.g., 6 months) are less meaningful. Critically, choosing a single rating at the end of an interval can lead to either missed or overemphasized changes in symptom severity. A benefit of the IDI is that all available symptom data can be incorporated to produce a measure within a specific time frame (e.g., 1 year), and it is unaffected by missing observations. It was designed to produce an overall measure of efficacy that can differ from traditional measures of treatment response, such as endpoint evaluations or linear slope over time.
Given the long-term nature of DBS treatment, the IDI was used to calculate yearly summaries for each participant’s available HAM-D data. Because there was no adjustment for baseline in the IDI-D calculation (33), the yearly estimates have the same range as the original scale, and cutoffs for response and remission can be calculated in the same way as those for endpoint data. For some years, only one value was present, and therefore IDI could not be calculated. In these cases, the single measure to represent that year was used. The IDI calculation was applied to produce yearly estimates of scores on the GAF and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity scale.
Results
Baseline Clinical Characteristics
Twenty-eight participants (19 of them female, 27 of them Caucasian) between the ages of 27 and 65 (mean=45 years) were included in this data set (Table 1). The first 17 participants (major depressive disorder, N=10; bipolar II disorder, N=7) underwent DBS implantation between 2007 and 2009 in an open-label trial with a 1-month single-blind stimulation-off lead-in period (22). Between 2011 and 2013, an additional 11 participants with depression underwent implantation using tractography-guided anatomical targeting (26). A total of 178 patient-years of data were collected and combined for analysis in this long-term follow-up study.
| Characteristic | All Participants (N=28) | Major Depressive Disorder Subgroup (N=21) | Bipolar II Disorder Subgroupa (N=7) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Education (years) | 16.5 | 2.7 | 16.4 | 2.4 | 16.7 | 3.5 |
| Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score | 23.6 | 2.9 | 23.3 | 2.8 | 24.5 | 3.0 |
| Number of medications at time of implantation surgery | 3.4 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 0.5 |
| Lifetime medication failures | 13 | 5.4 | 12.0 | 4.2 | 15.9 | 7.4 |
| Adequate medication trials (index episode) | 5.9 | 2.8 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 7.0 | 2.9 |
| Episodes (lifetime) | 5.7 | 7.3 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 12.4 | 12.6 |
| Duration of index episode (months) | 53.2 | 45.5 | 62.5 | 49.1 | 25.4* | 8.1 |
| Longest duration of previous euthymia (months)b | 45.1 | 48.1 | 46.6 | 54.4 | 42.3 | 35.7 |
| Age at study entry (years) | 44.9 | 9.8 | 45.9 | 10.3 | 41.9 | 8.4 |
| Age at first episode (years) | 20.1 | 9.1 | 20.4 | 8.8 | 19.4 | 10.7 |
| Past hospitalizations | 3.6 | 4.7 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 7.6 | 7.6 |
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Female | 19 | 67.9 | 16 | 76.2 | 3 | 42.9 |
| Received ECT | 27 | 96.0 | 20 | 95.0 | 7 | 100.0 |
| Receiving disability payments | 14 | 50.0 | 9 | 43.0 | 5 | 71.0 |
| Melancholic subtypec | 25 | 89.0 | 19 | 90.0 | 6 | 86.0 |
| Past suicide attemptsd | 32 | 17 | 15 | |||
a
One patient in the major depression group was later reclassified as having bipolar II disorder.
b
Data were available for 23 participants.
c
Determined using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV.
d
Suicide attempts were made by 10 participants in the overall sample, seven in the major depression subgroup and three in the bipolar II disorder subgroup.
*
p=0.005.
Group Outcomes by Illness Density Index
All 28 participants who underwent DBS surgery completed at least 1 year of follow-up. Fourteen participants completed at least 8 years of study participation. As a result of drop-off in the sample size at later time points (primarily because patients had not yet reached those time points), we limited group analysis to the first 8 years of study participation. At year 1, the mean HAM-D score decreased by nearly 50%, and the improvement continued over subsequent years (Figure 1A). From year 2 onward, the response and remission rates were maintained by at least 50% and 30%, respectively (Figure 1B). The mean GAF score at baseline was 34.4 (SD=6.1) (indicating major impairment in several areas) and improved to the 61–70 range (indicating mild symptoms but with overall good functioning) in years 2–8. Similarly, the mean CGI severity score improved from 6.1 (SD=0.6) (severely ill) at baseline to <3 (mildly ill or better) in years 2–8.
FIGURE 1. Group outcomes of deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate across 8 years in patients with treatment-resistant depressiona
a The first two time points represent scores at baseline and initiation of stimulation, followed by yearly scores. Panel A plots the Illness Density Index (IDI) for group mean scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) over 8 years of long-term follow-up of subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation. Panel B plots antidepressant response (≥50% improvement in HAM-D scores) and remission (HAM-D score ≤7) rates over the same period. Panel C plots the IDI for Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) scores. Panel D plots the IDI for Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) scores.
Sustainability of Response in Participants
Twenty participants (71%) demonstrated consistent improvement of ≥25% from baseline depression severity ratings throughout the study (see Figure S1 in the online supplement ). Eighteen participants (64%) showed improvement of ≥50% from baseline for the majority of their years of participation in the study. Among these long-term responders, 13 (46%) demonstrated a continuous antidepressant response after first reaching study response criteria. Six participants (21%) maintained ≥50% improvement continuously since their first year of participation. One participant with a robust and sustained response experienced a return of depressive symptoms only in the setting of device failure (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patient 14).
Response Patterns in the Bipolar Disorder Subgroup
Seven participants with bipolar II disorder were enrolled in this study, with one additional participant having a diagnosis of major depression reclassified as bipolar II disorder after a hypomanic episode that developed several years after inclusion in this study. These eight participants with bipolar disorder had an average of 12.4 lifetime depressive episodes and 7.6 hospitalizations. Patients with bipolar disorder had a significantly shorter duration of current depressive episodes compared with patients with depression (Table 1). Among the eight patients with bipolar disorder, five showed a favorable response pattern, and three exhibited limited antidepressant response over time. Four patients in the bipolar disorder group withdrew from the study, accounting for four of the five participants who withdrew from the study overall.
Safety
There were 56 serious adverse events across 178 patient-years (Table 2). Of these, 10 occurred in a single patient whose DBS device was explanted after 2 years of participation (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patient 5). There were 19 surgery-related serious adverse events, including six infections in four patients, with half related to the initial surgery and half related to an implantable pulse generator replacement. Six participants underwent reimplantation of intracranial DBS leads after required explantation as a result of an infection compromising connecting wires (N=3) or a device malfunction (N=2) or to improve targeting (N=1). One patient experienced a small intraoperative cortical hemorrhage and postoperative seizure, with no focal neurologic symptoms or sequelae, and no subsequent treatment for seizures. There were 15 device-related serious adverse events, primarily as a result of device malfunction, such as extension cable breaks. There were 21 psychiatric adverse events, with 20 associated psychiatric hospitalizations (Table 2). Seven of these adverse events and hospitalizations were for a single participant. Six serious adverse events and hospitalizations were as a result of anxiety. Five adverse events included suicide attempts among three participants. Two of three suicide attempts occurred in a single participant during a period of symptomatic remission (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patient 13). There were no instances of stimulation-induced hypomania or mania. All except four hospitalizations and three suicide attempts occurred before patients met criteria for treatment response. There were no suicides.
| Event and Category | Events (N) |
|---|---|
| Medical | 35 |
| DBS system revision as a result of system failure, dislodgement, erosion, or target change | 9 |
| DBS system revision as a result of infection | 6 |
| Spine or joint | 3 |
| Gastrointestinal | 3 |
| DBS tethering or scar tissue release | 2 |
| Cancer | 2 |
| Rash | 2 |
| Gynecologic | 2 |
| Intracranial hemorrhage | 1 |
| Chest pain | 1 |
| Altered mental status as a result of dehydration | 1 |
| Difficulty breathing | 1 |
| Syncope | 1 |
| Hypothyroidism | 1 |
| Psychiatric | 21 |
| Suicidal ideation | 8 |
| Anxiety | 6 |
| Suicide attempt | 5 |
| Worsening depression | 2 |
| Total | 56 |
| Surgery-related | 19 |
| Device-related | 15 |
Clinical Outcomes
Currently, 23 patients continue in long-term follow-up. Five participants withdrew from the study after 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 years, respectively. Of these, two exhibited no significant symptom improvement during the study (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patients 6 and 15). One patient who withdrew exhibited significant improvement in depression symptoms (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patient 5) but was lost to follow-up and was removed from the study for protocol noncompliance. That participant later had the DBS device explanted on request, but symptom severity was not documented at that time. Two participants demonstrated antidepressant response with stimulation but nevertheless elected to withdraw from the study (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patients 2 and 9). Of the five participants who withdrew, one (patient 2) declined to have the device explanted and continues to be treated at our facility and has not had a significant change in mood symptoms since withdrawing from the study.
For the participant (described above) originally diagnosed with major depressive disorder but subsequently diagnosed with bipolar II disorder after a hypomanic episode that emerged >3 years after start of DBS (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patient 11), the hypomanic episode was associated with psychotropic medication changes but was not associated with DBS parameter changes and did not require DBS treatment parameter modification or interruption. The hypomanic episode resolved with additional medication changes (but no changes in DBS parameters).
Stimulation Parameters
All participants were started on a single contact per hemisphere with monopolar stimulation at 6 mA. Stimulation remained constant in frequency (130 Hz) and pulse width (91 and 87 microseconds for the Libra XP and Brio implantable pulse generators, respectively). The current was the only variable modified, with all participants receiving between 5 and 9 mA (6–8 mA for 21 of the participants). There were 24 contact changes in 12 participants, and no contact changes were made after 1.5 years of chronic stimulation. Most contact changes were made in the earlier participants before the implementation of prospective tractography for target selection.
Device Considerations
The average life of a nonrechargeable Libra XP implantable pulse generator in this study was 16.5 months (SD=3.3). Each participant underwent two to six implantable pulse generator replacement surgeries. While not systematically assessed, it was observed that a subset of patients exhibited a clear gradual worsening of depressive symptoms with battery depletion. Hardware replacement surgery and resumed stimulation recaptured the previous level of response in all patients, typically over a period of weeks (Figure 2). Two patients (one responder, one nonresponder), each several years into their study participation, chose not to schedule an implantable pulse generator replacement when their battery was depleted (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patients 1 and 13). Both of these patients experienced subjective return or worsening of their depressive symptoms over time and ultimately underwent implantable pulse generator replacement and returned to their previous level of improvement after stimulation was resumed.
FIGURE 2. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores before and after first implantable pulse generator (IPG) failure in five participantsa
a The graph shows the 17-item HAM-D scores for five participants across several months before and after the first failure or replacement of their deep brain stimulation (DBS) system IPG (replaced at time 0 as shown on the x-axis). Patients commonly experience worsened depressive symptoms when stimulation is discontinued, with recovery of the previous level of antidepressant response when stimulation is reinitiated. HAM-D scores were not routinely assessed at the time of IPG expiration or replacement, and thus the data presented are exemplars of the phenomenon, not necessarily representative of the most typical response. Not all study subjects experienced this worsening, and IPG replacement surgeries were often scheduled presumptively in an effort to decrease the risk of return of depressive symptoms.
Long-Term Clinical Management
One participant started the study while not taking any antidepressants and has remained a continuous responder. However, in the subsequent years after study entry, this patient started taking one antidepressant and then a second antidepressant to address residual symptoms. At least nine participants (all with major depression) who experienced a period of wellness attempted to decrease or discontinue their medications. Two participants successfully discontinued all psychiatric medications and have maintained remission (see Figure S1 in the online supplement , patients 17 and 21). However, most of the patients who attempted to decrease or discontinue medications were unable to tolerate total discontinuation, and they continue to take one or more antidepressant medications.
After the first 6 months of DBS, participants returned to their local psychiatrists for routine clinical care. Some participants undergoing stimulation treatment experienced worsening of depressive symptoms at times (sometimes captured at study visits, sometimes not). Once optimal stimulation settings were established (best contact verified with tractography, stable stimulation parameters), further management of psychiatric symptoms involved traditional approaches (i.e., medications or psychotherapy). Stimulation adjustments were rarely made. No participant was treated with ECT after enrolling in the study.
Discussion
The results presented here support the long-term safety and sustained efficacy of SCC DBS in an open-label long-term follow-up study of participants enrolled in a clinical trial of SCC DBS for severe treatment-resistant depression, including patients with bipolar II disorder. No adverse events were attributable to acute or chronic stimulation, including a lack of stimulation-induced mania or hypomania (even in participants with bipolar disorder). There were five suicide attempts over 178 patient-years of observation, or about three attempts per 100 patient-years. A recent meta-analysis reported a rate of 4.66 suicide attempts per 100 patient-years in patients with treatment-resistant depression (7). Although a direct comparison between patients in this meta-analysis and our relatively small sample is not possible, it is noteworthy that the average age and gender ratio of patients in the two studies are similar, and follow-up in our study is longer than the average follow-up across studies reviewed in the meta-analysis (about 2 years).
Surgical treatment of a psychiatric disorder, particularly one with permanently indwelling hardware, will necessarily be associated with more medical and surgical complications than traditional psychiatric treatments. In our study, there were 19 serious adverse events related to surgery, or 0.7 events per participant or 0.1 per patient-year. In comparison, the rate of serious adverse events across several prospective multisite trials of DBS for neurological indications averaged 0.5 serious adverse events per participant (range, 0.125–1.12) (34). The 15 device-related serious adverse events in the present study equate to a rate of 4.2% serious hardware complications per electrode-year, compared with 8.4% in an earlier study of hardware complications in DBS for other neurological disorders (35). Thus, while medical complications, such as infection and device malfunction, are higher in DBS for treatment-resistant depression than would be observed with traditional psychiatric treatments, the medical complication rate in the present study is comparable to that seen with DBS for other indications.
These open-label, long-term data are consistent with earlier findings by Kennedy et. al. (23), who reported 4-year open-label follow-up results of another cohort of patients with treatment-resistant depression receiving SCC DBS. In the present study, the group mean HAM-D score, calculated using the IDI, was near 10 from the second year onward, down from a baseline score >23. Antidepressant response rates were maintained at or above 50%, and remission rates were maintained at or above 30%. In tandem with this, global illness severity decreased, while global functioning increased. However, it should be emphasized that the absence of a long-term control group (e.g., treatment as usual, blinded discontinuation, or long-term sham treatment) precludes firm conclusions regarding the role of chronic DBS in these long-term outcomes.
Reporting group means over time can obscure individual patterns of responsiveness to treatment or expectable fluctuations in mood or disease course over years. We believe that yearly IDI measures, while inevitably smoothing some of the fluctuations from within-year mood ratings, more accurately represent the year-to-year experience of depression in individual patients with lifelong mood disorders. It allows for utilization of all available data over time, rather than relying on data from a single, potentially arbitrary time point. Individual response patterns in this group of patients, who presented at baseline with a depressive episode averaging >4 years in duration, show that nearly two-thirds of these patients demonstrated years of sustained, significant symptom improvement after DBS, with many showing sustained remission from depression. Specifically, the persistence of the DBS treatment effect at both the group and individual levels is remarkable and is unmatched by other treatment modalities in patients with symptoms with this degree of treatment resistance, who often experience nonresponse or loss of response to ECT. Vagus nerve stimulation studies have similarly reported a slower onset and fairly well maintained antidepressant response. In a 5-year study of vagus nerve stimulation compared with treatment as usual, the median time to first response and median time to first remission were 12 months and 49 months, respectively, in the vagus nerve stimulation group, compared with 48 months and 65 months, respectively, in the treatment as usual group (18). The median time to recurrence of depression among remitted patients was 40 months in the vagus nerve stimulation group, compared with 19 months in the treatment as usual group. Studies of the maintenance of TMS response have rarely assessed patients beyond 6 months, but these studies have shown a continued response rate of 52%−62% at the 6-month time point (15, 36). Long-term psychotherapy (18 months) for treatment-resistant depression compared with treatment as usual showed limited remission after 42 months of follow-up (15% in the psychotherapy group compared with 4% in treatment as usual), but response rates of 30% compared with 4.4% were observed after 42 months of follow-up (37).
The necessity of ongoing DBS to maintain long-term clinical remission remains untested, because blinded discontinuation was not repeated after the first three study subjects (22). Anecdotal evidence here, as well as that reported by others (23, 27, 28), suggests a return of depressive symptoms after planned or unplanned withdrawal of stimulation (e.g., as a result of hardware malfunction or battery depletion), with return of clinical gains after resumption of stimulation. Puigdemont et al. (38) examined the SCC DBS target and found similar loss of antidepressant effects with controlled discontinuation. Across these various studies, depressive symptoms typically returned in the absence of stimulation, even after several years of chronic stimulation. Future studies will need to test these observations by discontinuing stimulation under controlled conditions, to address questions of DBS efficacy as well as safety risks.
Over several years of observation and clinical management, participants in this study required little additional clinical management beyond standard psychiatric follow-up and intervention. Most participants were principally observed by their local psychiatrist. The study team met with the patients twice yearly. After determining the best stimulation contacts early in the treatment course, additional changes to stimulation parameters were rarely made. Most of the additional care required for SCC DBS patients beyond standard psychiatric care is related to battery replacement, a burden that should be eased with the introduction of longer-lasting or rechargeable battery systems. Most participants continued to take antidepressant medication to support their mood. It is unknown whether the mechanism of SCC DBS inherently requires adjunctive medication treatment or whether its continued efficacy is predicated on the brain milieu at the time stimulation is initiated.
Identifying factors associated with long-term response is an important next step in SCC DBS research. Positive outcomes would seem to be dependent on pairing optimal procedural accuracy (e.g., anatomic targeting, stimulation parameter selection) in patients with an underlying biology responsive to this intervention. It has been observed that melancholic features and previous periods of functional recovery from depressive episodes appear to be associated with better DBS outcomes (39). Most participants in our study met criteria for the melancholic depression subtype. However, we were unable to empirically confirm the relationship between response and previous recovery periods with available data. Future studies would benefit from careful documentation of the degree of interepisode recovery. Beyond this, more qualitative studies of DBS patient characteristics and the quality of patients’ experience of depression before and after DBS are needed in order to optimize patient selection for DBS in the SCC and other brain targets.
Larger blinded, controlled trials will be necessary to validate the efficacy and safety of SCC DBS. The first such trial failed to show a statistically significant difference between active (17%) and sham (22%) stimulation at the predefined 6-month endpoint, but a progressive increased response rate of 53% and 49% with open-label stimulation at 18 and 24 months, respectively, was observed (30). Taken together, these results support a reassessment of clinical trial designs for studies of DBS for treatment-resistant depression, in order to conduct trials that will assess not only short-term efficacy but meaningful, sustained response over the long term.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ajp.2019.18121427.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 99.80 KB
References
1.
World Health Organization: Depression and other common mental disorders: global health estimates. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2017
2.
Solomon DA, Keller MB, Leon AC, et al: Multiple recurrences of major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157:229–233
3.
Coryell W, Endicott J, Maser JD, et al: The likelihood of recurrence in bipolar affective disorder: the importance of episode recency. J Affect Disord 1995; 33:201–206
4.
Holtzheimer PE, Mayberg HS: Stuck in a rut: rethinking depression and its treatment. Trends Neurosci 2011; 34:1–9
5.
Johnston KM, Powell LC, Anderson IM, et al: The burden of treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review of the economic and quality of life literature. J Affect Disord 2019; 242:195–210
6.
Amital D, Fostick L, Silberman A, et al: Serious life events among resistant and non-resistant MDD patients. J Affect Disord 2008; 110:260–264
7.
Bergfeld IO, Mantione M, Figee M, et al: Treatment-resistant depression and suicidality. J Affect Disord 2018; 235:362–367
8.
Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Wisniewski SR, et al: Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:1905–1917
9.
Dunner DL, Rush AJ, Russell JM, et al: Prospective, long-term, multicenter study of the naturalistic outcomes of patients with treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67:688–695
10.
Pagnin D, de Queiroz V, Pini S, et al: Efficacy of ECT in depression: a meta-analytic review. J ECT 2004; 20:13–20
11.
Jelovac A, Kolshus E, McLoughlin DM: Relapse following successful electroconvulsive therapy for major depression: a meta-analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology 2013; 38:2467–2474
12.
Kellner CH, Knapp RG, Petrides G, et al: Continuation electroconvulsive therapy vs pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention in major depression: a multisite study from the Consortium for Research in Electroconvulsive Therapy (CORE). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63:1337–1344
13.
Carpenter LL, Janicak PG, Aaronson ST, et al: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for major depression: a multisite, naturalistic, observational study of acute treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Depress Anxiety 2012; 29:587–596
14.
Dunner DL, Aaronson ST, Sackeim HA, et al: A multisite, naturalistic, observational study of transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with pharmacoresistant major depressive disorder: durability of benefit over a 1-year follow-up period. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75:1394–1401
15.
Janicak PG, Nahas Z, Lisanby SH, et al: Durability of clinical benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant major depression: assessment of relapse during a 6-month, multisite, open-label study. Brain Stimul 2010; 3:187–199
16.
Rush AJ, Sackeim HA, Marangell LB, et al: Effects of 12 months of vagus nerve stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: a naturalistic study. Biol Psychiatry 2005; 58:355–363
17.
Nahas Z, Marangell LB, Husain MM, et al: Two-year outcome of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for treatment of major depressive episodes. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66:1097–1104
18.
Aaronson ST, Sears P, Ruvuna F, et al: A 5-year observational study of patients with treatment-resistant depression treated with vagus nerve stimulation or treatment as usual: comparison of response, remission, and suicidality. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174:640–648
19.
Rush AJ, Marangell LB, Sackeim HA, et al: Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, controlled acute phase trial. Biol Psychiatry 2005; 58:347–354
20.
Mayberg HS, Lozano AM, Voon V, et al: Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron 2005; 45:651–660
21.
Guinjoan SM, Mayberg HS, Costanzo EY, et al: Asymmetrical contribution of brain structures to treatment-resistant depression as illustrated by effects of right subgenual cingulum stimulation. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2010; 22:265–277
22.
Holtzheimer PE, Kelley ME, Gross RE, et al: Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69:150–158
23.
Kennedy SH, Giacobbe P, Rizvi SJ, et al: Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: follow-up after 3 to 6 years. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168:502–510
24.
Lozano AM, Giacobbe P, Hamani C, et al: A multicenter pilot study of subcallosal cingulate area deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. J Neurosurg 2012; 116:315–322
25.
Lozano AM, Mayberg HS, Giacobbe P, et al: Subcallosal cingulate gyrus deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry 2008; 64:461–467
26.
Riva-Posse P, Choi KS, Holtzheimer PE, et al: A connectomic approach for subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation surgery: prospective targeting in treatment-resistant depression. Mol Psychiatry 2018; 23:843–849
27.
Merkl A, Aust S, Schneider GH, et al: Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a double-blinded randomized controlled study and long-term follow-up in eight patients. J Affect Disord 2018; 227:521–529
28.
Merkl A, Schneider GH, Schönecker T, et al: Antidepressant effects after short-term and chronic stimulation of the subgenual cingulate gyrus in treatment-resistant depression. Exp Neurol 2013; 249:160–168
29.
Ramasubbu R, Anderson S, Haffenden A, et al: Double-blind optimization of subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a pilot study. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2013; 38:325–332
30.
Puigdemont D, Pérez-Egea R, Portella MJ, et al: Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus: further evidence in treatment-resistant major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2012; 15:121–133
31.
Eitan R, Fontaine D, Benoît M, et al: One year double blind study of high vs low frequency subcallosal cingulate stimulation for depression. J Psychiatr Res 2018; 96:124–134
32.
Holtzheimer PE, Husain MM, Lisanby SH, et al: Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a multisite, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2017; 4:839–849
33.
Kelley ME, Franco AR, Mayberg HS, et al: The Illness Density Index (IDI): a longitudinal measure of treatment efficacy. Clin Trials 2012; 9:596–604
34.
Buhmann C, Huckhagel T, Engel K, et al: Adverse events in deep brain stimulation: a retrospective long-term analysis of neurological, psychiatric and other occurrences. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0178984
35.
Oh MY, Abosch A, Kim SH, et al: Long-term hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery 2002; 50:1268–1274, discussion 1274–1276
36.
Connolly KR, Helmer A, Cristancho MA, et al: Effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice post-FDA approval in the United States: results observed with the first 100 consecutive cases of depression at an academic medical center. J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73:e567–e573
37.
Fonagy P, Rost F, Carlyle JA, et al: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy for treatment-resistant depression: the Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS). World Psychiatry 2015; 14:312–321
38.
Puigdemont D, Portella M, Pérez-Egea R, et al: A randomized double-blind crossover trial of deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a pilot study of relapse prevention. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2015; 40:224–231
39.
Crowell AL, Garlow SJ, Riva-Posse P, et al: Characterizing the therapeutic response to deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a single center long-term perspective. Front Integr Neurosci 2015; 9:41
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 29 December 2018
Revision received: 2 May 2019
Revision received: 23 June 2019
Revision received: 13 July 2019
Accepted: 22 July 2019
Published online: 4 October 2019
Published in print: November 01, 2019
Keywords
Authors
Funding Information
Dana Foundationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100001068
Hope for Depression Research Foundationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006346
Supported by NIH grant MH077869 to Dr. Holtzheimer and by grants from the Hope for Depression Research Foundation and the Dana Foundation to Dr. Mayberg. Devices were donated by St. Jude Medical (now Abbott).Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0036700.Dr. Crowell has received grant support from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the NIH Loan Repayment Program. Dr. Holtzheimer has received research support from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, NeoSync, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; he receives royalties from Oxford University Press and UpToDate; and he has received consulting fees from St. Jude Medical (now Abbott). Dr. Garlow has served as a consultant to and received research support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and he serves on the research grants committee of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gross has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical; and he has received research grant support from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Mayberg has received consulting and intellectual licensing fees from St. Jude Medical (now Abbott). The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).