Vagus nerve stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: A one-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial

Vagus nerve stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: A one-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial

Background: Few treatments are available for individuals with marked treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Objective: Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of FDA-approved adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in patients with marked TRD. Methods: This 12-month, multicenter, double-blind, sham-co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Charles R. Conway, Scott T. Aaronson, Harold A. Sackeim, Mark S. George, John Zajecka, Mark T. Bunker, Walter Duffy, Mary Stedman, Patricio Riva-Posse, Rebecca M. Allen, João Quevedo, Matthew Berger, Gustavo Alva, Mohd A. Malik, David L. Dunner, Ivan Cichowicz, Michael Banov, Lucian Manu, Ziad Nahas, Matthew Macaluso, Brian J. Mickey, Yvette Sheline, Christopher L. Kriedt, Ying-Chieh (Lisa) Lee, Charles Gordon, Olivia Shy, Quyen Tran, Laura Yates, A. John Rush
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-05-01
Series:Brain Stimulation
Subjects:
Treatment-resistant depression
Vagus nerve stimulation
Adjunctive therapy
Efficacy
Response
Partial response
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X24013901
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Few treatments are available for individuals with marked treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Objective: Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of FDA-approved adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in patients with marked TRD. Methods: This 12-month, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial included 493 adults with marked treatment-resistant major depression who were randomized to active or no-stimulation sham VNS for 12 months. The primary outcome was percent time in response across months 3–12, with response defined as a ≥50 % change from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Several secondary endpoints were evaluated. Results: Overall, 88.4 % of participants completed the trial. Percent time in MADRS response did not distinguish active from sham VNS. However, ratings from on-site clinicians (Clinical Global Inventory–Impression [CGI-I]), patients (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology–Self Report [QIDS-SR]), and offsite masked raters (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology–Clinician [QIDS-C]) revealed antidepressant benefits significantly favoring active VNS. Active VNS demonstrated significantly more percent time in response on the CGI-I (P = 0.004) and QIDS-SR (P = 0.049), and significantly more percent time in partial response (PR; symptom improvement ≥30 %) on the CGI-I (P < 0.001) and QIDS-C (P = 0.006) versus sham VNS. Active VNS exceeded sham VNS in rate of dyspnea (P = 0.035), a known side effect of VNS. No new adverse events were identified. Conclusions: Percent time in MADRS response did not distinguish the treatment groups, but on multiple instruments time in response and PR showed a positive treatment effect. VNS was found safe and effective in participants with marked TRD.
ISSN:1935-861X

Similar Items