Mobolaji A. Lawal

Background: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is considered one of the major clinical challenges in the field of psychiatry. An estimated 44% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to two consecutive antidepressant therapies, and 33% do not respond to up to four antidepressants. Over 15% of all patients with MDD remain refractory to any treatment intervention. rTMS is considered a treatment option for patients with TRD. Likewise, iCBT is evidence-based, symptom-focused psychotherapy recommended for the treatment of TRD. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the initial comparative clinical effectiveness of rTMS treatment with and without iCBT as an innovative intervention for the treatment of participants diagnosed with TRD. Methods: This study is a prospective two-arm randomized controlled trial. Overall, 78 participants diagnosed with TRD were randomized to one of two treatment interventions: rTMS sessions alone and rTMS sessions plus iCBT. Participants in each group were made to complete evaluation measures at baseline, and 6 weeks (discharge) from treatment. The primary outcome measure was baseline to six weeks change in mean score for the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-17). Secondary outcomes included mean baseline to six-week changes in the Columbia suicide severity rating scale (CSSRS) for the rate of suicidal ideations, the QIDS-SR16 for subjective depression, and the EQ-5D-5L to assess the quality of health in participants. Results: A majority of the participants were females 50 (64.1%), aged ≥ 40 39 (50.0%), and had college/university education 54 (73.0%). After adjusting for the baseline scores, the study failed to find a significant difference in the changes in mean scores for participants from baseline to six weeks between the two interventions under study on the HAMD-17 scale: F (1, 53) = 0.15, p = 0.70, partial eta squared = 0.003, CSSRS; F (1, 56) = 0.04 p = 0.85, partial eta squared = 0.001, QIDS-SR16 scale; F (1, 53) = 0.04 p = 0.61, partial eta squared = 0.005, and EQ-5D-VAS; F (1, 51) = 0.46 p = 0.50, and partial eta squared = 0.009. However, there was a significant reduction in means scores at week six compared to baseline scores for the combined study population on the HAMD-17 scale (42%), CSSRS (41%), QIDS-SR16 scale (35%), and EQ-VAS scale (62%). Conclusion: This study did not find that combined treatment of TRD with rTMS + iCBT (unguided) was superior to treatment with rTMS alone. Our findings do not support the use of combined treatment of rTMS + iCBT for the management of TRD disorders.

This study explores differences in stress, anxiety, and depression experienced by different ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a cross-sectional online survey of subscribers of the COVID-19 Text4Hope text messaging program in Alberta. Stress, anxiety, and depression were measured among Caucasian, Indigenous, Asian, and other ethnic groups using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 scales, respectively. The burden of depression and stress were significantly higher in Indigenous populations than in both Caucasian and Asian ethnic groups. The mean difference between Indigenous and Caucasian for PHQ-9 scores was 1.79, 95% CI of 0.74 to 2.84, p < 0.01 and for PSS-10 it was 1.92, 95% CI of 0.86 to 2.98, p < 0.01). The mean difference between Indigenous and Asian for PHQ-9 scores was 1.76, 95% CI of 0.34 to 3.19, p = 0.01 and for PSS-10 it was 2.02, 95% CI of 0.63 to 3.41, p < 0.01. However, Indigenous participant burden of anxiety was only significantly higher than Asian participants’ (mean difference for GAD-7 was 1.91, 95% CI of 0.65 to 3.18, p < 0.01). Indigenous people in Alberta have higher burden of mental illnesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings are helpful for service planning and delivery.