IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcome and Predictors of Response

Author

Listed:
  • Pino Alonso
  • Daniel Cuadras
  • Loes Gabriëls
  • Damiaan Denys
  • Wayne Goodman
  • Ben D Greenberg
  • Fiacro Jimenez-Ponce
  • Jens Kuhn
  • Doris Lenartz
  • Luc Mallet
  • Bart Nuttin
  • Eva Real
  • Cinto Segalas
  • Rick Schuurman
  • Sophie Tezenas du Montcel
  • Jose M Menchon

Abstract

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been proposed as an alternative to ablative neurosurgery for severe treatment-resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), although with partially discrepant results probably related to differences in anatomical targetting and stimulation conditions. We sought to determine the efficacy and tolerability of DBS in OCD and the existence of clinical predictors of response using meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the literature on DBS for OCD from 1999 through January 2014 using PubMed/MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We performed fixed and random-effect meta-analysis with score changes (pre-post DBS) on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) as the primary-outcome measure, and the number of responders to treatment, quality of life and acceptability as secondary measures. Findings: Thirty-one studies involving 116 subjects were identified. Eighty-three subjects were implanted in striatal areas—anterior limb of the internal capsule, ventral capsule and ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens and ventral caudate—27 in the subthalamic nucleus and six in the inferior thalamic peduncle. Global percentage of Y-BOCS reduction was estimated at 45.1% and global percentage of responders at 60.0%. Better response was associated with older age at OCD onset and presence of sexual/religious obsessions and compulsions. No significant differences were detected in efficacy between targets. Five patients dropped out, but adverse effects were generally reported as mild, transient and reversible. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms that DBS constitutes a valid alternative to lesional surgery for severe, therapy-refractory OCD patients. Well-controlled, randomized studies with larger samples are needed to establish the optimal targeting and stimulation conditions and to extend the analysis of clinical predictors of outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Pino Alonso & Daniel Cuadras & Loes Gabriëls & Damiaan Denys & Wayne Goodman & Ben D Greenberg & Fiacro Jimenez-Ponce & Jens Kuhn & Doris Lenartz & Luc Mallet & Bart Nuttin & Eva Real & Cinto Segalas , 2015. "Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcome and Predictors of Response," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133591
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133591
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133591&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133591?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bastijn J. G. Boom & Alfredo Elhazaz-Fernandez & Peter A. Rasmussen & Enny H. Beest & Aishwarya Parthasarathy & Damiaan Denys & Ingo Willuhn, 2023. "Unraveling the mechanisms of deep-brain stimulation of the internal capsule in a mouse model," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.