Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression

Noninvasive electrical stimulation as a neuroprotective strategy in retinal diseases: a systematic review of preclinical studies

BACKGROUND

Electrical activity has a crucial impact on the development and survival of neurons. Numerous recent studies have shown that noninvasive electrical stimulation (NES) has neuroprotective action in various retinal disorders.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on in vivo studies and provide a comprehensive summary of the neuroprotective action and the mechanisms of NES on retinal disorders.

METHODS

Based on the PRISMA guideline, a systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library to collect all relevant in vivo studies on "the role of NES on retinal diseases" published up until September 2023. Possible biases were identified with the adopted SYRCLE's tool.

RESULTS

Of the 791 initially gathered studies, 21 articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. The results revealed the neuroprotective effect of NES (involved whole-eye, transcorneal, transscleral, transpalpebral, transorbital electrical stimulation) on different retinal diseases, including retinitis pigmentosa, retinal degeneration, high-intraocular pressure injury, traumatic optic neuropathy, nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy. NES could effectively delay degeneration and apoptosis of retinal neurons, preserve retinal structure and visual function with high security, and its mechanism of action might be related to promoting the secretion of neurotrophins and growth factors, decreasing inflammation, inhibiting apoptosis. The quality scores of included studies ranged from 5 to 8 points (a total of 10 points), according to SYRCLE's risk of bias tool.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review indicated that NES exerts neuroprotective effects on retinal disease models mainly through its neurotrophic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic capabilities. To assess the efficacy of NES in a therapeutic setting, however, well-designed clinical trials are required in the future.

Adverse events of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in older adults with depression, a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

In the last decade, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been introduced as a non-invasive neuromodulation therapy for depression. Little is known, however, about (serious) adverse events (AE) of rTMS in older adults with a depression. In this article, we want to study what is known about (serious) AE of rTMS in older adults (>60 years) with late-life depression (LLD).

METHODS

A systematic search has been performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, EMBase and PsycInfo. We have screened 622 articles for eligibility. Eleven studies, evaluating 353 patients in total, were included in this review.

RESULTS

AE were reported in 12.4% of the older adults with a LLD treated with rTMS, serious AE in 1.5%. Headache (6.9%) and discomfort at the stimulation site (2.7%) are the most commonly reported AE. Serious AE reported are: psychiatric hospitalization (three times), a combination of posterior vitreous detachment and retinal tear, and increased suicide ideation (both once).

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS in older adults with LLD was concluded overall to be safe due to the low frequency of AE reported in trials and observational studies. In case-reports, however, more serious AE have been described. To tailor use of rTMS in older adults with LLD, more research is needed in larger samples to optimize tolerance.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of 124 Italian Patients With Treatment Resistant Depression: A Real-World, Prospective Study

Introduction: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a debilitating condition affecting 20-30% of patients with major depressive disorders (MDD). Currently, there is no established standard of care for TRD, and wide variation in the clinical approach for disease management has been documented. Real-world data could help describe TRD clinical features, disease burden, and treatment outcome and identify a potential unmet medical need. Methods: We analyzed the Italian data from a European, prospective, multicentric, observational cohort study of patients fulfilling TRD criteria by the European Medicine Agency, with moderate to severe major depressive episode, and starting a new antidepressant treatment according to routinary clinical practice. They were followed up for minimum 6 months. Treatments received throughout the study period, disease severity, health-related quality of life and functioning were prospectively recorded and analyzed. Results: The Italian subcohort included 124 TRD patients (30.2% of patients of the European cohort; mean age 53.2 [sd = 9.8], women: 82, 66.1%). At enrollement, the mean (SD) duration of MDD was 16 years (sd = 11.1) and the mean duration of the ongoing major depressive episode (MDE) was 97.5 weeks (sd = 143.5); low scores of quality of life and functioning were reported. The most frequently antidepressant classes started at baseline (data available for 98 subjects) were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI, 42 patients [42.9%]) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI, 32 patients [32.7%]). In terms of treatment strategies, 50 patients (51%) started augmentation therapies, 18 (18.4%) combination therapies and 24 (24.5%) monoterapies (6 patients [6%] started a non-antidepressant drug only). Fourteen patients (11.3%) were treated with a psychosocial approach, including psychotherapy. After 6 months of treatment, clinical assessments were collected for 89 patients: 64 (71.9%) showed no response, 9 (10.1%) response without remission and 16 (18.0%) were in remission; non-responder patients showed lower quality of life and higher disability scores than responder patients. Conclusions: In our sample of TRD patients, we documented substantial illness burden, low perceived quality of life and poor outcome, suggesting an unmet treatment need in TRD care in Italy. Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03373253.

Evaluation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Efficiency in Major Depressive Disorder Patients: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). This study evaluated the antidepressant effect of rTMS and examined how it affected N-asetyl aspartate (NAA), choline (Cho), creatine (Cr), lactate (Lac), myoinositol (mIns), glutamate (Glu), glutathione (GSH), and glutamine (Gln) metabolite levels in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) of MDD patients who were not receiving antidepressant medication.

METHODS

In total, 18 patients (10 female, 8 male) were evaluated. Each patient underwent H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-MRS) before and within 3 days of completion of TMS therapy. All patients completed 20 sessions of rTMS directed at the left DLPFC over a 2-week period. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores of patients were calculated, and their responses to treatment were assessed within 1-3 days of completion of TMS.

RESULTS

We found statistically significant differences in HAMD scores before and after rTMS. Moreover, the peak metabolite ratios of NAA/Cr, GSH/Cr, and Gln/Cr were significantly higher after rTMS compared to those before rTMS.

CONCLUSION

Increased understanding of the mechanism of action of TMS will improve its application and may stimulate development of new-generation therapeutic agents.

The Insula: A Brain Stimulation Target for the Treatment of Addiction

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a growing public health concern with only a limited number of approved treatments. However, even approved treatments are subject to limited efficacy with high long-term relapse rates. Current treatment approaches are typically a combination of pharmacotherapies and behavioral counselling. Growing evidence and technological advances suggest the potential of brain stimulation techniques for the treatment of SUDs. There are three main brain stimulation techniques that are outlined in this review: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The insula, a region of the cerebral cortex, is known to be involved in critical aspects underlying SUDs, such as interoception, decision making, anxiety, pain perception, cognition, mood, threat recognition, and conscious urges. This review focuses on both the preclinical and clinical evidence demonstrating the role of the insula in addiction, thereby demonstrating its promise as a target for brain stimulation. Future research should evaluate the optimal parameters for brain stimulation of the insula, through the use of relevant biomarkers and clinical outcomes for SUDs.

A systematic literature review of the clinical efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in non-treatment resistant patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treatment resistant patients (at least 4 medication trials) appears to be well accepted and forms the coverage policies and rTMS's use in many of the largest US payers. However, less is known about rTMS's use in patients who have undergone ≤1 failed medication trial. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the clinical efficacy of rTMS in patients after ≤1 medication trials.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all articles which addressed the use of rTMS in ≤1 medication trial. All types of study designs were included and assessed for quality and strength of evidence using: GRADE and CEBM. Searches of peer reviewed articles were undertaken for the year 2000 to the present. All languages were considered. Electronic databases were searched and included: PubMed and EBSCO. Evidence assessment websites were also searched and included: Cochrane, NICE, AHRQ, and ICER. Additionally, the clinical guidelines for specialty societies which use rTMS was searched. Hand searches of the reference sections of identified articles was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Electronic and other sources identified 165 after duplicates were removed. Twenty two articles were assessed for eligibility and ultimately 10 articles were included in the systematic review and graded. Six articles were graded high quality (CEBM/GRADE: 1c/B) demonstrating that the use of rTMS was clinically efficacious in patients after ≤1 medication trial. Four additional trials demonstrated a positive effect of rTMS in patients after ≤1 medication trial but were of a lower quality.

CONCLUSION

The use of rTMS in patients after ≤1 medication trial should be considered. US payers should consider revising their coverage policies to include the use of rTMS in these patients.

Non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Following traumatic brain injury (TBI) there is an increased prevalence of depression compared to the general population. It is unknown whether non-pharmacological interventions for depression are effective for people with TBI.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with TBI at reducing the diagnosis and severity of symptoms of depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 11 February 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases and clinical trials registers. Relevant conference proceedings and journals were handsearched, as were the reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children who had a TBI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials from the search results, then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. The authors contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information. We rated the overall quality of the evidence of the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 334 adult participants. We identified no studies that included children as participants. All studies were affected by high risk of bias due to a lack of blinding of participants and personnel; five studies were affected by high risk of bias for lack of blinding of outcome assessors. There was high or unclear risk of biases affecting some studies across all the Cochrane risk of bias measures.Three studies compared a psychological intervention (either cognitive behaviour therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) with a control intervention. Data regarding depression symptom outcome measures were combined in a meta-analysis, but did not find an effect in favour of treatment (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.19; Z = 0.83; P = 0.41). The other comparisons comprised of single studies of depression symptoms and compared; cognitive behaviour therapy versus supportive psychotherapy (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.48; Z = 0.30; P = 0.77); repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation plus tricyclic antidepressant (rTMS + TCA) versus tricyclic antidepressant alone (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.32; Z = 3;19, P = 0.001); and a supervised exercise program versus exercise as usual (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.03; Z = 1.84; P = 0.07). There was very-low quality evidence, small effect sizes and wide variability of results, suggesting that no comparisons showed a reliable effect for any intervention.Only one study mentioned minor, transient adverse events from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review did not find compelling evidence in favour of any intervention. Future studies should focus on participants with a diagnosed TBI and include only participants who have a diagnosis of depression, or who record scores above a clinical cutoff on a depression measure. There is a need for additional RCTs that include a comparison between an intervention and a control that replicates the effect of the attention given to participants during an active treatment.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an augmentative strategy for treatment-resistant depression, a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment, but there has not been a meta-analysis report which evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of rTMS used as an augmentative strategy for antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treatment. We thus conducted this meta-analysis, aimed at clarifying whether rTMS enhances the efficacy of TRD.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs for studying the efficacy of rTMS versus (vs) sham condition when combined with antidepressants in TRD treatment, and screened the references of the previous meta-analysis about the rTMS for MDD treatment. Response rates and NNT were chose as the primary outcomes, and remission rates, change from baseline of HAMD scores, dropouts were used as secondary outcomes. For dichotomous data, an intention-to-treat analysis principle was applied; for continuous data, we calculated the standard mean difference between groups with a random-effect model. Sensitivity analysis was done to explore the source of heterogeneity and the factors which potentially impact the efficacy.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. The total sample size was 279, with 171 in the rTMS group and 108 in the sham group. The pooled response and remission rate for the rTMS and sham group was 46.6% and 22.1%, respectively; the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-12.45, z = 3.60, p = 0.0003, and the associated number needed to treat (NNT) was 3.4. rTMS group achieved a significant reduction of HAMD score than the sham group, the pooled SMD of change from baseline was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.15, z = 5.75, p < 0.00001]. Because of the small number of included RCTs, the preplanned sensitivity and subgroup analyses were finally abandoned. The dropouts in both groups were relatively low, indicating the high acceptability of rTMS.

CONCLUSIONS

For TRD patients, augmentative rTMS after the failure of medications significantly increases the effect of antidepressants, and rTMS was a safe strategy with relatively low adverse events and low dropout rate, suggesting that augmentative rTMS is an effective intervention for TRD.

Short-term efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in depression- reanalysis of data from meta-analyses up to 2010

BACKGROUND

According to a narrative review of 13 meta-analyses (published up to 2010), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has a moderate, short-term antidepressant effect in the treatment of major depression. The aim of the current study was to reanalyse the data from these 13 meta-analyses with a uniform meta-analytical procedure and to investigate predictors of such an antidepressant response.

METHODS

A total of 40 double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trials with parallel designs, utilising rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the treatment of major depression, was included in the current meta-analysis. The studies were conducted in 15 countries on 1583 patients and published between 1997-2008. Depression severity was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, or Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale at baseline and after the last rTMS. A random-effects model with the inverse-variance weights was used to compute the overall mean weighted effect size, Cohen's d.

RESULTS

There was a significant and moderate reduction in depression scores from baseline to final, favouring rTMS over sham (overall d = -.54, 95% CI: -.68, -.41, N = 40 studies). Predictors of such a response were investigated in the largest group of studies (N = 32) with high-frequency (>1 Hz) left (HFL) rTMS. The antidepressant effect of HFL rTMS was present univariately in studies with patients receiving antidepressants (at stable doses or started concurrently with rTMS), with treatment-resistance, and with unipolar (or bipolar) depression without psychotic features. Univariate meta-regressions showed that depression scores were significantly lower after HFL rTMS in studies with higher proportion of female patients. There was little evidence for publication bias in the current analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily rTMS (with any parameters) has a moderate, short-term antidepressant effect in studies published up to 2008. The clinical efficacy of HFL rTMS may be better in female patients not controlling for any other study parameters.

More female patients and fewer stimuli per session are associated with the short-term antidepressant properties of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): a meta-analysis of 54 sham-controlled studies published between 1997-2013

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) appears to have short-term antidepressant properties. The aim of the current study was to update our previous meta-analysis and to investigate factors associated with the antidepressant properties of rTMS.

METHOD

Following a systematic literature search conducted in Medline and PsycInfo, N=14 sham-controlled, parallel design studies (published after 2008 to August 2013) that had utilized rTMS of the DLPFC in major depression were included in the current meta-analysis. The sensitivity and moderator analyses also included data from N=40 studies (published in 1997-2008) from our previous meta-analysis. The effect size (Cohen's d) in each study was the standardized difference in mean depression scores (on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) from baseline to final (after last session) in rTMS compared to sham groups.

RESULTS

According to a random-effects model with inverse-variance weights, depression scores were significantly reduced after rTMS compared to sham in studies published from 2008-2013 based on N=659 patients (overall mean weighted d=-0.42, 95% confidence interval: -0.66, -0.18, P=0.001). Combining studies from our past and current meta-analyses (published in 1997-2013; N=54) revealed that depression was significantly reduced after left-fast (>1 Hz), right-slow (≤1 Hz), and bilateral (or sequential) rTMS of DLPFC compared to sham. Significant antidepressant properties of rTMS were observed in studies with patients who were treatment resistant, unipolar (or bipolar), non-psychotic, medication-free (or started on antidepressants concurrently with rTMS). According to univariate meta-regressions, depression scores were significantly lower in studies with more female patients and fewer stimuli per session. There was little evidence that publication bias occurred in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

According to this study, the largest meta-analysis to date, short-term antidepressant properties of rTMS are independent of concurrent antidepressants and might depend on sex and the number of stimuli per session.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and acceptability of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression

BACKGROUND

Bilateral repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising novel therapeutic intervention for major depression (MD). However, clinical trials to date have reported conflicting evidence concerning its overall efficacy, which might have resulted from low statistical power. Thus, meta-analytical approaches could be useful in examining this issue by allowing the integration of findings from multiple studies and thus producing more accurate estimates of the treatment effect.

METHOD

We searched the literature for randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on bilateral rTMS for treating MD from 1995 to July 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and from October 2008 until May 2012 using Medline. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and the number needed to treat.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from seven RCTs, totaling 279 subjects with MD. After an average of 12.9 (s.d. = 2.7) sessions, 24.7% (40/162) and 6.8% (8/117) of subjects receiving active bilateral rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as responders [OR 4.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95-9.52, p < 0.0001]. Also, 19% (23/121) and 2.6% (2/77) of subjects were remitters following active bilateral rTMS and sham rTMS, respectively (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.65-21.8, p = 0.006). No difference between baseline mean depression scores for the bilateral and sham rTMS groups was found, and the former was comparable with the latter in terms of drop-out rates at study end. Furthermore, we did not find significant differences efficacy- and acceptability-wise between active bilateral and unilateral rTMS at study end. Finally, heterogeneity between the included RCTs was not significant, and the risk of publication bias was found to be low.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral rTMS is a promising treatment for MD as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable with those of standard antidepressants and unilateral rTMS. Furthermore, bilateral rTMS seems to be an acceptable treatment for depressed subjects.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke

BACKGROUND

It had been assumed that suppressing the undamaged contralesional motor cortex by repetitive low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or increasing the excitability of the damaged hemisphere cortex by high-frequency rTMS will promote function recovery after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of rTMS for improving function in people with stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (April 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to May 2012), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 2012), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to April 2012), CINAHL (1982 to May 2012), AMED (1985 to May 2012), PEDro (April 2012), REHABDATA (April 2012) and CIRRIE Database of International Rehabilitation Research (April 2012). In addition, we searched five Chinese databases, ongoing trials registers and relevant reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing rTMS therapy with sham therapy or no therapy. We excluded trials that reported only laboratory parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials involving a total of 588 participants in this review. Two heterogenous trials with a total of 183 participants showed that rTMS treatment was not associated with a significant increase in the Barthel Index score (mean difference (MD) 15.92, 95% CI -2.11 to 33.95). Four trials with a total of 73 participants were not found to have a statistically significant effect on motor function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI -0.99 to 2.01). Subgroup analyses of different stimulation frequencies or duration of illness also showed no significant difference. Few mild adverse events were observed in the rTMS groups, with the most common events being transient or mild headaches (2.4%, 8/327) and local discomfort at the site of the stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support the routine use of rTMS for the treatment of stroke. Further trials with larger sample sizes are needed to determine a suitable rTMS protocol and the long-term functional outcome.

Clinically meaningful efficacy and acceptability of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating primary major depression: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials

Clinical trials on low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have yielded conflicting evidence concerning its overall efficacy for treating major depression (MD). As this may have been the result of limited statistical power of individual trials, we have carried the present systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this issue. We searched the literature for English language randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on LF-rTMS for treating MD from 1995 through July 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and from October 2008 until July 2012 using MEDLINE. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates as well as overall dropout rates at study end. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT). Data were obtained from eight RCTs, totaling 263 subjects with MD. After an average of 12.6±3.9 rTMS sessions, 38.2% (50/131) and 15.1% (20/132) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as responders (OR=3.35; 95% CI=1.4-8.02; p=0.007). Also, 34.6% (35/101) and 9.7% (10/103) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as remitters (OR=4.76; 95% CI=2.13-10.64; p<0.0001). The associated NNT for both response and remission rates was 5. Sensitivity analyses have shown that protocols delivering >1200 magnetic pulses in total as well as those offering rTMS as a monotherapy for MD were associated with higher rates of response to treatment. No differences on mean baseline depression scores and dropout rates for active and sham rTMS groups were found. Finally, the risk of publication bias was low. In conclusion, LF-rTMS is a promising treatment for MD, as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of standard antidepressants and high-frequency rTMS. Furthermore, LF-rTMS seems to be an acceptable intervention for depressed subjects.

Somatic therapies for treatment-resistant depression: ECT, TMS, VNS, DBS

The field of non-pharmacological therapies for treatment resistant depression (TRD) is rapidly evolving and new somatic therapies are valuable options for patients who have failed numerous other treatments. A major challenge for clinicians (and patients alike) is how to integrate the results from published clinical trials in the clinical decision-making process.

We reviewed the literature for articles reporting results for clinical trials in particular efficacy data, contraindications and side effects of somatic therapies including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Each of these devices has an indication for patients with different level of treatment resistance, based on acuteness of illness, likelihood of response, costs and associated risks. ECT is widely available and its effects are relatively rapid in severe TRD, but its cognitive adverse effects may be cumbersome. TMS is safe and well tolerated, and it has been approved by FDA for adults who have failed to respond to one antidepressant, but its use in TRD is still controversial as it is not supported by rigorous double-blind randomized clinical trials. The options requiring surgical approach are VNS and DBS. VNS has been FDA-approved for TRD, however it is not indicated for management of acute illness. DBS for TRD is still an experimental area of investigation and double-blind clinical trials are underway.

Meta-Review of Metanalytic Studies with Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for the Treatment of Major Depression

Background:

Major Depression (MD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are worldwide leading causes of disability and therapeutic strategies for these impairing and prevalent conditions include pharmacological augmentation strategies and brain stimulation techniques. In this perspective, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique with a favorable profile of tolerability which, despite being recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with medication-refractory unipolar depression, still raises some doubts about most effective parameters of stimulation.

Methods:

A literature search was performed using PubMed for the years 2001 through February 2011 in order to review meta-analytic studies assessing efficacy and safety issues for rTMS in depressive disorders. Fifteen meta-analyses were identified and critically discussed in order to provide an updated and comprehensive overview of the topic with specific emphasis on potentially optimal parameters of stimulation.

Results:

First meta-analyses on the efficacy of rTMS for the treatment of MD and TRD have shown mixed results. On the other hand, more recent meta-analytic studies seem to support the antidepressant efficacy of the technique to a greater extent, also in light of longer periods of stimulation (e.g. > 2 weeks).

Conclusion:

rTMS seems to be an effective and safe brain stimulation technique for the treatment of medication refractory depression. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to better define specific stimulation-related issues, such as duration of treatment as well as durability of effects and predictors of response.

Fractional anisotropy changes after several weeks of daily left high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal cortex to treat major depression

OBJECTIVES

As part of a sham controlled treatment trial using daily left repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), brain changes associated with 4 to 6 weeks of treatment were examined using diffusion tensor imaging to noninvasively evaluate prefrontal white matter (WM) microstructure. A decrease in fractional anisotropy values of the left prefrontal WM could indicate damage to the region.

METHODS

Diffusion tensor imaging was performed before and after 4 to 6 weeks of daily rTMS treatments. Mean fractional anisotropy levels associated with active rTMS and sham rTMS for the right and left prefrontal WM were assessed.

RESULTS

Adequate images were acquired for 8 participants (active n = 4, sham n = 4) before and after rTMS. A mean increase was found for the left prefrontal WM. The mixed model revealed a trend toward a significant treatment group × region interaction effect (P = 0.11). Furthermore, simple region effects (left prefrontal WM vs right prefrontal WM) were at a trend toward significance for difference after treatment within the active rTMS group (P = 0.07), but not within the sham rTMS group (P = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation resulted in no evidence of damage to WM on the side of stimulation. Diffusion tensor imaging may offer a unique modality to increase our understanding of mechanisms of action for rTMS.

Focal electrical stimulation as a sham control for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: Does it truly mimic the cutaneous sensation and pain of active prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation?

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a novel, noninvasive method of stimulating selected regions of the brain that has both research applications and potential clinical utility, particularly for depression. To conduct high-quality clinical studies of rTMS, it is necessary to have a convincing placebo (or sham) treatment. Prefrontal rTMS causes cutaneous discomfort and muscle twitching; therefore, an optimal control condition, ie, sham condition, would mimic the cutaneous sensation and muscular discomfort of rTMS without stimulating the brain. Ideally, the quality and intensity of the sham condition would feel identical to the quality and intensity of the rTMS condition, except that the sham would have no effect on cortical activity. We designed and built a focal electrical stimulation system as a sham rTMS condition. Although this electrical sham system is superior to methods used in previous studies, little is known about how the new electrical sham system compares with active rTMS in terms of the level of discomfort and type of sensation it produces.

METHODS

We hypothesized that the electrical sham system may not mirror the experimental condition sufficiently. We studied this hypothesis under single-blind conditions in 15 healthy adults by administering either the real or sham rTMS at high and low intensities while subjects, who were unaware of condition, rated subjective qualities of the stimulation (such as tingling, pinching, and piercing), the scalp location of the perception, and the painfulness of the stimuli.

RESULTS

At low-intensity stimulation, the two techniques (active and sham) differ with respect to the subjective quality of the sensation. The differences between real and sham rTMS were less dramatic at higher intensities. The best sham condition that most closely mimics real prefrontal rTMS requires individual titration of the intensity of electrical stimulation across a broad range. Performing this titration without unblinding patients is likely possible, but technically challenging. We propose a new approach to do this.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that it is possible to create a truly indistinguishable sham condition (with appropriate acoustic masking as well), but more work is needed beyond these initial attempts.

A practical guide to setting up a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) service

OBJECTIVE

This paper outlines the process of developing a transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) service in a private hospital setting, to provide a model for similar services elsewhere in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

The practical issues involved in setting up the service, including funding, staffing, equipment, treatment protocols and associated research, are described.

RESULTS

The service has been widely accepted by psychiatrists and patients. Forty-five patients have completed treatment and the research results show a significant clinical response to rTMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians involved in the service have found both the clinical and research components rewarding. In the longer term, the issue of ongoing funding of rTMS services remains to be resolved.

Quality assessment and comparison of evidence for electroconvulsive therapy and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for schizophrenia: a systematic meta-review

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies directly comparing the effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for depression generally favour ECT. ECT and rTMS have also been investigated for chronic symptoms of schizophrenia although there are no direct comparisons available.

AIMS

We sought to determine the relative benefits and adverse outcomes of ECT and rTMS by comparing effect sizes reported in systematic reviews and to quality assess this evidence using GRADE and QUOROM guidelines.

METHOD

Included are systematic reviews with meta-analysis published since 2000, reporting results for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder or first episode schizophrenia. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Current Contents, PsycINFO and the Cochrane library were searched and hand searching was conducted. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 58 reviews were excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria. The remaining five have a low probability of reporting bias and show that high quality evidence suggests a short-term, medium to large treatment effect of rTMS for auditory hallucinations (d=0.88) but not other symptoms, for people treated with concurrent antipsychotics. For ECT, high quality evidence suggests a short-term small, significant effect for improvement in global symptoms, for people with or without concurrent antipsychotics (RR=0.76). There is no evidence for longer-term therapeutic or adverse effects of either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

It is worthwhile considering rTMS in cases where auditory hallucinations have not responded to antipsychotic medications and ECT where overall symptoms have not responded to antipsychotic medications.

Using simultaneous repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation/functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (rTMS/fNIRS) to measure brain activation and connectivity

INTRODUCTION

Simultaneously acquiring functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) during Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) offers the possibility of directly investigating superficial cortical brain activation and connectivity. In addition, the effects of rTMS in distinct brain regions without quantifiable behavioral changes can be objectively measured.

METHODS

Healthy, nonmedicated participants age 18-50 years were recruited from the local community. After written informed consent was obtained, the participants were screened to ensure that they met inclusion criteria. They underwent two visits of simultaneous rTMS/fNIRS separated by 2 to 3 days. In each visit, the motor cortex and subsequently the prefrontal cortex (5 cm anterior to the motor cortex) were stimulated (1 Hz, max 120% MT, 10 s on with 80 s off, for 15 trains) while simultaneous fNIRS data were acquired from the ipsilateral and contralateral brain regions.

RESULTS

Twelve healthy volunteers were enrolled with one excluded prior to stimulation. The 11 participants studied (9 male) had a mean age of 31.8 (s.d. 10.2, range 20-49) years. There was no significant difference in fNIRS between Visit 1 and Visit 2. Stimulation of both the motor and prefrontal cortices resulted in a significant decrease in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO(2)) concentration in both the ipsilateral and contralateral cortices. The ipsilateral and contralateral changes showed high temporal consistency.

DISCUSSION

Simultaneous rTMS/fNIRS provides a reliable measure of regional cortical brain activation and connectivity that could be very useful in studying brain disorders as well as cortical changes induced by rTMS.

Is there evidence for effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders?

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), since its introduction in 1985, has been studied for its efficacy in different psychiatric disorders. It has been touted to be an effective treatment modality for major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, and in reducing auditory hallucinations in patients with schizophrenia. In this article, the authors outline the research and evidence toward the efficacy of TMS in psychiatry.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an evidence-based analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

THE TECHNOLOGY

rTMS is a noninvasive way to stimulate nerve cells in areas of the brain. During rTMS, an electrical current passes through a wire coil placed over the scalp. The current induces a magnetic field that produces an electrical field in the brain that then causes nerve cells to depolarize, resulting in the stimulation or disruption of brain activity. Researchers have investigated rTMS as an option to treat MDD, as an add-on to drug therapy, and, in particular, as an alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for patients with treatment-resistant depression. The advantages of rTMS over ECT for patients with severe refractory depression are that general anesthesia is not needed, it is an outpatient procedure, it requires less energy, the simulation is specific and targeted, and convulsion is not required. The advantages of rTMS as an add-on treatment to drug therapy may include hastening of the clinical response when used with antidepressant drugs.

REVIEW STRATEGY

The Medical Advisory Secretariat used its standard search strategy to locate international health technology assessments and English-language journal articles published from January 1996 to March 2004.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Some early meta-analyses suggested rTMS might be effective for the treatment of MDD (for treatment-resistant MDD and as an add-on treatment to drug therapy for patients not specifically defined as treatment resistant). There were, however, several crucial methodological limitations in the included studies that were not critically assessed. These are discussed below. Recent meta-analyses (including 2 international health technology assessments) have done evidence-based critical analyses of studies that have assessed rTMS for MDD. The 2 most recent health technology assessments (from the Oxford Cochrane Collaboration and the Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment) concluded that there is no evidence that rTMS is effective for the treatment of MDD, either as compared with a placebo for patients with treatment-resistant or nontreatment-resistant MDD, or as an alternative to ECT for patients with treatment-resistant MDD. This mainly due to the poor quality of the studies. The major methodological limitations were identified in older meta-analyses, recent health technology assessments, and the most recently published trials (Level 2-4 evidence) on the effectiveness of rTMS for MDD are discussed below. Small sample size was a limitation acknowledged by many of the authors. There was also a lack of a priori sample size calculation or justification. Biased randomization may have been a problem. Generally, the published reports lacked detailed information on the method of allocation concealment used. This is important because it is impossible to determine if there was a possible influence (direct or indirect) in the allocation of the patients to different treatment groups. The trials were single blind, evaluated by external blinded assessors, rather than double blind. Double blinding is more robust, because neither the participants nor the investigators know which participants are receiving the active treatment and which are getting a placebo. Those administering rTMS, however, cannot be blinded to whether they are administering the active treatment or a placebo. There was patient variability among the studies. In some studies, the authors said that patients were "medication resistant," but the definitions of resistant, if provided, were inconsistent or unclear. For example, some described "medication resistant" as failing at least one trial of drugs during the current depressive episode. Furthermore, it was unclear if the term "medication resistant" referred to antidepressants only or to combinations of antidepressants and other drug augmentation strategies (such as neuroleptics, benzodiazepine, carbamazepine, and lithium). Also variable was the type of depression (i.e., unipolar and/or bipolar), if patients were inpatients or outpatients, if they had psychotic symptoms or no psychotic symptoms, and the chronicity of depression. Dropouts or withdrawals were a concern. Some studies reported that patients dropped out, but provided no further details. Intent-to-treat analysis was not done in any of the trials. This is important, because ignoring patients who drop out of a trial can bias the results, usually in favour of the treatment. This is because patients who withdraw from trials are less likely to have had the treatment, more likely to have missed their interim checkups, and more likely to have experienced adverse effects when taking the treatment, compared with patients who do not withdraw. (1) Measurement of treatment outcomes using scales or inventories makes interpreting results and drawing conclusions difficult. The most common scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) is based on a semistructured interview. Some authors (2) reported that rating scales based on semistructured interviews are more susceptible to observation bias than are self-administered questionnaires such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Martin et al. (3) argued that the lack of consistency in effect as determined by the 2 scales (a positive result after 2 weeks of treatment as measured by the HDRS and a negative result for the BDI) makes definitive conclusions about the nature of the change in mood of patients impossible. It was suggested that because of difficulties interpreting results from psychometric scales, (4) and the subjective or unstable character of MDD, other, more objective, outcome measures such as readmission to hospital, time to hospital discharge, time to adjunctive treatment, and time off work should be used to assess rTMS for the treatment of depression. A placebo effect could have influenced the results. Many studies reported response rates for patients who received placebo treatment. For example, Klein et al. (5) reported a control group response rate as high as 25%. Patients receiving placebo rTMS may receive a small dose of magnetic energy that may alter their depression. Short-term studies were the most common. Patients received rTMS treatment for 1 to 2 weeks. Most studies followed-up patients for 2 to 4 weeks post-treatment. Dannon et al. (6) followed-up patients who responded to a course of ECT or rTMS for up to 6 months; however, the assessment procedure was not blinded, the medication regimen during follow-up was not controlled, and initial baseline data for the patient groups were not reported. The long-term effectiveness of rTMS for the treatment of depression is unknown, as is the long-term use, if any, of maintenance therapy. The cost-effectiveness of rTMS for the treatment of depression is also unknown. A lack of long-term studies makes cost-effectiveness analysis difficult. The complexity of possible combinations for administering rTMS makes comparing like with like difficult. Wasserman and Lisanby (7) have said that the method for precisely targeting the stimulation in this area is unreliable. It is unknown if the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is the optimal location for treatment. Further, differences in rTMS administration include number of trains per session, duration of each train, and motor threshold. Clinical versus statistical significance. Several meta-analyses and studies have found that the degree of therapeutic change associated with rTMS across studies is relatively modest; that is, results may be statistically, but not necessarily clinically, significant. (8-11). Conventionally, a 50% reduction in the HDRS scores is commonly accepted as a clinically important reduction in depression. Although some studies have observed a statistically significant reduction in the depression rating, many have not shows the clinically significant reduction of 50% on the HDRS. (11-13) Therefore, few patients in these studies would meet the standard criteria for response. (9) Clinical/methodological diversity and statistical heterogeneity. In the Norwegian health technology assessment, Aarre et al. (14) said that a formal meta-analysis was not feasible because the designs of the studies varied too much, particularly in how rTMS was administered and in the characteristics of the patients. They noted that the quality of the study designs was poor. The 12 studies that comprised the assessment had small samples, and highly variable inclusion criteria and study designs. The patients' previous histories, diagnoses, treatment histories, and treatment settings were often insufficiently characterized. Furthermore, many studies reported that patients had treatment-resistant MDD, yet did not listclear criteria for the designation. Without this information, Aarre and colleagues suggested that the interpretation of the results is difficult and the generalizability of results is questionable. They concluded that rTMS cannot be recommended as a standard treatment for depression: "More, larger and more carefully designed studies are needed to demonstrate convincingly a clinically relevant effect of rTMS." In the Cochrane Collaboration systematic review, Martin et al. (3;15) said that the complexity of possible combinations for administering rTMS makes comparison of like versus like difficult. A statistical test for heterogeneity (chi-square test) examines if the observed treatment effects are more different from each other than one would expect due to random error (or chance) alone. (16) However, this statistical test must be interpreted with caution because it has low power in the (common) situation of a meta-analysis when the trials have small sample sizes or are few. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Investigating human motor control by transcranial magnetic stimulation

In this review we discuss the contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the understanding of human motor control. Compound motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) may provide valuable information about corticospinal transmission, especially in patients with neurological disorders, but generally do not allow conclusions regarding the details of corticospinal function to be made. Techniques such as poststimulus time histograms (PSTHs) of the discharge of single, voluntarily activated motor units and conditioning of H reflexes provide a more optimal way of evaluating transmission in specific excitatory and inhibitory pathways. Through application of such techniques, several important issues have been clarified. TMS has provided the first real evidence that direct monosynaptic connections from the motor cortex to spinal motoneurons exist in man, and it has been revealed that the distribution of these projections roughly follows the same proximal-distal gradient as in other primates. However, pronounced differences also exist. In particular, the tibialis anterior muscle appears to receive as significant a monosynaptic corticospinal drive as muscles in the hand. The reason for this may be the importance of this muscle in controlling the foot trajectory in the swing phase of walking. Conditioning of H reflexes by TMS has provided evidence of changes in cortical excitability prior to and during various movements. These experiments have generally confirmed information obtained from chronic recording of the activity of corticospinal cells in primates, but information about the corticospinal contribution to movements for which information from other primates is sparse or lacking has also been obtained. One example is walking, where TMS experiments have revealed that the corticospinal tract makes an important contribution to the ongoing EMG activity during treadmill walking. TMS experiments have also documented the convergence of descending corticospinal projections and peripheral afferents on spinal interneurons. Current investigations of the functional significance of this convergence also rely on TMS experiments. The general conclusion from this review is that TMS is a powerful technique in the analysis of motor control, but that care is necessary when interpreting the data. Combining TMS with other techniques such as PSTH and H reflex testing amplifies greatly the power of the technique.