# Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Older Inpatients with Depression: A Real-World Comparison of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Depressive Symptoms and Functional Recovery

## TL;DR

This study compares two non-invasive brain stimulation methods, rTMS and tDCS, in older patients with depression, finding that rTMS leads to better short-term symptom reduction.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence comparing rTMS and tDCS effectiveness in older inpatients with depression, focusing on both depressive symptoms and functional recovery.

## Key findings

- rTMS showed significantly higher response and remission rates compared to tDCS at one month.
- Both rTMS and tDCS led to comparable improvements in global functioning scores over time.
- rTMS resulted in greater reductions in depression severity scores at both two weeks and one month.

## Abstract

Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is increasingly used as an adjunctive option in late-life depression (≥60 years), a condition frequently complicated by multimorbidity and incomplete response to standard treatments. Comparative real-world evidence between repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), particularly including functional outcomes, remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, naturalistic comparative study of 104 depressed inpatients (≥60 years), either unipolar or bipolar, treated with rTMS (n = 48) or tDCS (n = 56) as part of routine care. Depression severity was assessed with the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS21) at baseline, 2 weeks, and 1 month; response was defined as ≥50% HDRS21 score reduction and remission as HDRS21 < 7 at 1 month. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) was assessed at admission and discharge (baseline and 1 month). Longitudinal changes were examined using covariate-adjusted mixed-effects models; categorical outcomes were compared using χ2 tests. Propensity score matching was applied as an additional approach to reduce confounding due to the observational design. Results: At 1 month, response and remission rates were significantly higher in the rTMS group than in the tDCS group (87.5% vs. 55.4%, p < 0.001; 62.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.047, respectively). rTMS showed greater HDRS21 score reductions at 2 weeks and 1 month (Time × Treatment, p < 0.001). GAF scores significantly improved over time in both groups (Time effect, p < 0.001) without between-technique differences (Time × Treatment, p = 0.56), and GAF scores did not differ by response/remission status. Conclusions: In this cohort of inpatients aged ≥ 60 years with depressive episodes, rTMS was associated with greater short-term reductions in HDRS21 scores compared with tDCS, whereas both modalities showed comparable improvements in GAF from admission to discharge.