A randomized, sham-controlled study of high frequency rTMS for auditory hallucination in schizophrenia

10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may improve cognitive function: An exploratory study of schizophrenia patients with auditory hallucinations

Objectives

Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia patients with auditory hallucinations is more prominent compared to those without. Our study aimed to investigate the cognitive improvement effects of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations.

Methods

A total of 60 schizophrenic patients with auditory hallucinations in this study were randomly assigned to sham or active group. Both groups received 10 Hz or sham rTMS targeted in left DLPFC for 20 sessions. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Auditory Hallucination Rating Scale (AHRS), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), and the Udvalg for Kliniske Under-sogelser (UKU) side effect scale were used to measure psychiatric symptoms, auditory hallucinations, cognition, and side reaction, respectively.

Results

Our results indicated that the active group experienced greater improvements in RBANS-total score (P = 0.043) and immediate memory subscale score (P = 0.001). Additionally, the PANSS-total score, negative and positive subscale score were obviously lower in the active group compared to the sham group (all P < 0.050). Furthermore, our study found that the improvement of RBANS-total score was positively associated with the decline of positive factor score, and the improvement of language score in RBANS was positively associated with the reduction in PANSS-total scale, negative and positive subscale score in the real stimulation group (all P < 0.050).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated that a four-week intervention of 10 Hz rTMS over the left DLPFC can improve cognition (particularly immediate memory) among schizophrenia patients with auditory hallucinations. Future studies with larger sample size are needful to verify our preliminary findings.

Assessment of treatment resistance criteria in non-invasive brain stimulation studies of schizophrenia

Novel treatment modalities, such as non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), typically focus on patient groups that have failed multiple treatment interventions. Despite its promise, the clinical translation of NIBS in schizophrenia has been limited. One important obstacle to implementation is the inconsistent reporting of treatment resistance in the clinical trial literature contributing to heterogeneity in reported effects. In response, we develop a numerical approach to synthesize quality of assessment of Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia (TRS) and apply this to studies investigating therapeutic response to NIBS in patients with schizophrenia. Literature search conducted through PubMed database identified 119 studies investigating Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Electrical Stimulation in treating resistant schizophrenia symptoms. A quality score out of 11 was assigned to each study based on adherence to the international consensus guidelines for TRS developed by the Treatment Response and Resistance in Psychosis (TRRIP) group. Results revealed an overall paucity of studies with thorough assessment and/or reporting of TRS phenomenon, as evidenced by a mean quality score of 3.38/11 (SD: 1.01) for trials and 5.16/11 (SD: 1.57) for case reports, though this improved minimally since the publication of consensus criteria. Most studies considered treatment-resistance as a single dimensional construct by reporting resistance of a single symptom, and failed to establish treatment adherence, resistance time course and functional impairment. We conclude that the current NIBS literature in schizophrenia do not reflect its true effects on treatment-resistance. There is an urgent need to improve assessment and reporting standards of clinical trials that target TRS.

The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Several trials have shown preliminary evidence for the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a treatment for negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Here, we synthesize this literature in a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials of TMS in patients with schizophrenia. Specifically, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched for sham-controlled, randomized trials of TMS among patients with schizophrenia. The effect of TMS vs. sham on negative symptoms in each study was quantified by the standardized mean difference (SMD, Cohen's d) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) and pooled across studies using an inverse variance random effects model. We identified 57 studies with a total of 2633 participants that were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed statistically significant superiority of TMS (SMD = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.26; 0.56, p-value < 0.001), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 5. Furthermore, stratified analyses suggested that TMS targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and using a stimulation frequency >1 Hz was most efficacious. There was, however, substantial heterogeneity and high risk of bias among the included studies. In conclusion, TMS appears to be an efficacious treatment option for patients with schizophrenia suffering from negative symptoms, but the optimal TMS parameters are yet to be established.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation for auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Through imaging studies, a significant increase in cerebral activity has been detected in fronto-temporal areas in patients experiencing auditory verbal hallucinations. Therefore, non-invasive neuromodulation, in particular transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), has been considered as a therapeutic intervention for medication-resistant auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia. We aimed to synthesize results from randomized trials on either rTMS or tDCS versus placebo in patients with schizophrenia by including five recently published trials in the field. A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature was conducted. Studies were included on the basis of pre-defined selection criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the statistical analysis. Including 465 and 960 patients, respectively, 12 tDCS and 27 rTMS studies were included. Regarding treatment of medication refractory auditory verbal hallucinations, no significant effect of tDCS (-0.23 [-0.49, 0.02], p = 0.08) or rTMS (-0.19 [-0.50, 0,11], p = 0.21) was found compared to sham in this meta-analysis. The current study found that it cannot be concluded that rTMS and tDCS are efficacious in treating medication-resistant auditory verbal hallucinations. Larger randomized controlled tDCS trials of a higher quality should be conducted in the future to establish substantial evidence of tDCS. The interventions appear safe and may have beneficial effects on other outcomes.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Positive Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a potential treatment add-on for positive symptoms in schizophrenia. To summarize the current evidence for its efficacy, we reviewed clinical trials from the last 20 years that investigated TMS for positive symptoms. We performed a search on the PubMed database for clinical trials that used TMS for the treatment of positive symptoms published in peer-reviewed journals. We excluded reviews, case reports, and opinion papers. Of the 30 studies included, the majority (n = 25) investigated auditory verbal hallucinations. Twelve studies found evidence for a positive treatment effect of TMS on positive symptoms, while 18 did not find enough evidence to conclude that TMS is effective for positive symptoms. However, the small sample size of the majority of studies is a limiting factor for the reliability of previous findings. In conclusion, evidence for an effect of TMS on positive symptoms was mixed. Since most of the studies were performed in patients with auditory verbal hallucinations, further research of TMS for other positive symptoms including thought disorder and delusions is warranted.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Therapeutic and Probe in Schizophrenia: Examining the Role of Neuroimaging and Future Directions

Schizophrenia is a complex condition associated with perceptual disturbances, decreased motivation and affect, and disrupted cognition. Individuals living with schizophrenia may experience myriad poor outcomes, including impairment in independent living and function as well as decreased life expectancy. Though existing treatments may offer benefit, many individuals still experience treatment resistant and disabling symptoms. In light of the negative outcomes associated with schizophrenia and the limitations in currently available treatments, there is a significant need for novel therapeutic interventions. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that can modulate the activity of discrete cortical regions, allowing direct manipulation of local brain activation and indirect manipulation of the target's associated neural networks. rTMS has been studied in schizophrenia for the treatment of auditory hallucinations, negative symptoms, and cognitive deficits, with mixed results. The field's inability to arrive at a consensus on the use rTMS in schizophrenia has stemmed from a variety of issues, perhaps most notably the significant heterogeneity amongst existing trials. In addition, it is likely that factors specific to schizophrenia, rather than the rTMS itself, have presented barriers to the interpretation of existing results. However, advances in approaches to rTMS as a biologic probe and therapeutic, many of which include the integration of neuroimaging with rTMS, offer hope that this technology may still play a role in improving the understanding and treatment of schizophrenia.

Treatment effect variability in brain stimulation across psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis of variance

Noninvasive brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are promising add-on treatments for a number of psychiatric conditions. Yet, some of the initial excitement is wearing off. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) have found inconsistent results. This inconsistency is suspected to be the consequence of variation in treatment effects and solvable by identifying responders in RCTs and individualizing treatment. However, is there enough evidence from RCTs that patients respond differently to treatment? This question can be addressed by comparing the variability in the active stimulation group with the variability in the sham group. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed and included all double-blinded, sham-controlled RCTs and crossover trials that used TMS or tDCS in adults with a unipolar or bipolar depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or obsessive compulsive disorder. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to ensure data quality and validity, we extracted a measure of variability of the primary outcome. A total of 130 studies with 5748 patients were considered in the analysis. We calculated variance-weighted variability ratios for each comparison of active stimulation vs sham and entered them into a random-effects model. We hypothesized that treatment effect variability in TMS or tDCS would be reflected by increased variability after active compared with sham stimulation, or in other words, a variability ratio greater than one. Across diagnoses, we found only a minimal increase in variability after active stimulation compared with sham that did not reach statistical significance (variability ratio = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97, 1.08, P = 0.358). In conclusion, this study found little evidence for treatment effect variability in brain stimulation, suggesting that the need for personalized or stratified medicine is still an open question.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on the symptom dimensions of schizophrenia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have shown promise in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Objective

To quantify the efficacy of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCT) of tDCS and rTMS for the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and identify significant moderators relating to patient-related features and stimulation parameters.

Methods

Systemic review and meta-analyses of the relevant literature published until February 1st, 2017 to assess treatment efficacy and quantify the contribution of potential moderator variables.

Results

We identified 7 RCTs on tDCS (involving 105 participants) and 30 RCTs on rTMS (involving 768 participants). Compared to sham, tDCS improved all symptom dimensions but the effect reached significance for negative symptoms (Hedge’s g = −0.63, p = 0.02). Efficacy for positive but not negative symptoms was linearly associated with cumulative tDCS stimulation. Compared to sham, rTMS improved hallucinations (Hedge’s g = −0.51, p < 0.001) and negative symptoms (Hedge’s g = −0.49, p = 0.01) but was associated with modest, non-significant worsening of positive symptoms (Hedge’s g = 0.28, p = 0.13). Higher pulse frequency (>10 Hz), motor threshold intensity of 110%, left prefrontal cortical treatment site and trial duration over 3 weeks were associated with improvement in negative symptoms and worsening in positive symptoms (all p < 0.03).

Conclusions

The symptom dimensions in schizophrenia may respond differently to brain stimulation interventions in a way that may reflect the interaction between disease- and treatment-related mechanisms. Our findings underscore the need for further research into patient selection prior to treatment assignment and greater refinement of stimulation protocols.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018)

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

Auditory verbal hallucination and the auditory network: From molecules to connectivity

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) frequently occur across multiple psychiatric diseases especially in schizophrenia (SCZ) patients. Functional imaging studies have revealed the hyperactivity of the auditory cortex and disrupted auditory-verbal network activity underlying AVH etiology. This review will firstly summarize major findings from both human AVH patients and animal models, with focuses on the auditory cortex and associated cortical/sub-cortical areas. Besides mesoscale connectivity or activity data, structure and functions at synaptic level will be discussed, in conjunction with molecular mechanisms. We have summarized major findings for the pathogenesis of AVH in SCZ patients, with focuses in the auditory cortex and prefrontal cortex (PFC). Those discoveries provide explanations for AVH from different perspectives including inter-regional connectivity, local activity in specific areas, structure and functions of synapse, and potentially molecular targets. Due to the uniqueness of AVH in humans, full replica using animals seems impossible. However, we can still extract useful information from animal SCZ models based on the disruption of auditory pathway during AVH episodes. Therefore, we will further interpolate the synaptic structures and molecular targets, whose dysregulation in SCZ models may be highly related with AVH episodes. As the last part, implications for future development of treatment strategies will be discussed.

Auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia: current perspectives in brain stimulation treatments

PURPOSE

This review reports the current perspectives of brain stimulation techniques in the treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) in schizophrenia.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature in the PubMed database revealed that the most studied techniques are noninvasive techniques (NIBS), including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

RESULTS

The results showed that ECT could have great clinical efficacy but is currently underused in practice perhaps due to the costs associated with its limited implementation and potential associated risks. tDCS is still poorly studied and does not demonstrate sufficiently homogeneous or conclusive results yet to prove its efficacy in the treatment of AVH. However, its safe and simple implementation allows us to recommend it to patients who are refractory to other stimulation techniques. Finally, rTMS seems to be the most efficacious NIBS to offer patients with persistent AVH as an add-on therapeutic strategy. Its implementation has a non negligible cost but can be performed by a single practitioner. Great evolution in these techniques with technological progress, robotics and computer science are currently being tested and will undoubtedly improve the clinical efficacy of these procedures, particularly towards more personalized treatments such as individual rTMS targets and intensities. There are also new techniques for deep brain stimulation based on focused ultrasound that could provide much insight into the treatment of AVH in schizophrenia.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that add-on brain stimulation treatments could play a key role among the therapeutic strategies for auditory hallucinations reduction in schizophrenia.

Using Cognitive Neuroscience to Improve Mental Health Treatment: A Comprehensive Review

Mental health interventions do not yet offer complete, client-defined functional recovery, and novel directions in treatment research are needed to improve the efficacy of available interventions. One promising direction is the integration of social work and cognitive neuroscience methods, which provides new opportunities for clinical intervention research that will guide development of more effective mental health treatments that holistically attend to the biological, social, and environmental contributors to disability and recovery. This article reviews emerging trends in cognitive neuroscience and provides examples of how these advances can be used by social workers and allied professions to improve mental health treatment. We discuss neuroplasticity, which is the dynamic and malleable nature of the brain. We also review the use of risk and resiliency biomarkers and novel treatment targets based on neuroimaging findings to prevent disability, personalize treatment, and make interventions more targeted and effective. The potential of treatment research to contribute to neuroscience discoveries regarding brain change is considered from the experimental-medicine approach adopted by the National Institute of Mental Health. Finally, we provide resources and recommendations to facilitate the integration of cognitive neuroscience into mental health research in social work.

High-Frequency Neuronavigated rTMS in Auditory Verbal Hallucinations: A Pilot Double-Blind Controlled Study in Patients With Schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Despite extensive testing, the efficacy of low-frequency (1 Hz) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of temporo-parietal targets for the treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) in patients with schizophrenia is still controversial, but promising results have been reported with both high-frequency and neuronavigated rTMS. Here, we report a double-blind sham-controlled study to assess the efficacy of high-frequency (20 Hz) rTMS applied over a precise anatomical site in the left temporal region using neuronavigation.

METHODS

Fifty-nine of 74 randomized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders (DSM-IV R) were treated with rTMS or sham treatment and fully evaluated over 4 weeks. The rTMS target was determined by morphological MRI at the crossing between the projection of the ascending branch of the left lateral sulcus and the superior temporal sulcus (STS).

RESULTS

The primary outcome was response to treatment, defined as a 30% decrease of the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale (AHRS) frequency item, observed at 2 successive evaluations. While there was no difference in primary outcome between the treatment groups, the percentages of patients showing a decrease of more than 30% of AHRS score (secondary outcome) did differ between the active (34.6%) and sham groups (9.1%) (P = .016) at day 14.

DISCUSSION

This controlled study reports negative results on the primary outcome but demonstrates a transient effect of 20 Hz rTMS guided by neuronavigation and targeted on an accurate anatomical site for the treatment of AVHs in schizophrenia patients.

Active and placebo transcranial magnetic stimulation effects on external and internal auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left temporo-parietal region has been proposed as a treatment for resistant auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH), but which patients are more likely to benefit from rTMS is still unclear. This study sought to assess the effects of rTMS on AVH, with a focus on hallucination phenomenology.

METHOD

Twenty-seven patients with schizophrenia and medication-resistant AVH participated to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on rTMS study. The stimulation targeted a language-perception area individually determined using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a language recognition task. AVH were assessed using the hallucination subscale of the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS). The spatial location of AVH was assessed using the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales.

RESULTS

A significant improvement in SAPS hallucination subscale score was observed in both actively treated and placebo-treated groups with no difference between both modalities. Patients with external AVH were significantly more improved than patients with internal AVH, with both modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

A marked placebo effect of rTMS was observed in patients with resistant AVH. Patients with prominent external AVH may be more likely to benefit from both active and placebo interventions. Cortical effects related to non-magnetic stimulation of the auditory cortex are suggested.