Left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment of depression in bipolar affective disorder: a pilot study of acute safety and efficacy

Efficacy and Safety of Theta Burst Versus Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is more energy- and time-efficient than is standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). However, further studies are needed to analyze TBS therapy for its efficacy and safety compared with standard rTMS in treating depression. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare TBS therapy with standard rTMS treatment regarding their safety and therapeutic effect on individuals with depression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six data bases (Wanfang, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception till December 20, 2022. Two independent reviewers selected potentially relevant studies on the basis of the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the methodologic quality of the eligible trials using the modified ten-item Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Finally, ten comparable pairs of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for meta-analysis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) of the rates of response, remission, and adverse events were simultaneously calculated using quality-effects (QE) and random-effects (RE) models. Changes in depression scores associated with antidepressant effects were expressed using standardized mean differences simultaneously. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022376790).

RESULTS

Nine of the 602 RCTs, covering 1124 patients (616 who had TBS protocols applied vs 508 treated using standard rTMS), were included. Differences in response rates between the above two treatment modalities were not significant (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.88-1.16, p = 0.44, I2 = 0%, RE model; OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87-1.32, p = 0.44, I2 = 0%, QE model). Differences in adverse event rates between TBS and standard rTMS groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS has similar efficacy and safety to standard rTMS for treating depression. Considering the short duration of daily stimulation sessions, this meta-analysis supports the continued development of TBS for treating depression.

Clinical efficacy of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) in psychiatric and cognitive disorders: A systematic review

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) has gained attention as an enhanced form of traditional TMS, targeting broader and deeper regions of the brain. However, a fulsome synthesis of dTMS efficacy across psychiatric and cognitive disorders using sham-controlled trials is lacking. We systematically reviewed 28 clinical trials comparing active dTMS to a sham/controlled condition to characterize dTMS efficacy across diverse psychiatric and cognitive disorders. A comprehensive search of APA PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases was conducted. Predominant evidence supports dTMS efficacy in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n = 2), substance use disorders (SUDs; n = 8), and in those experiencing depressive episodes with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD; n = 6). However, the clinical efficacy of dTMS in psychiatric disorders characterized by hyperactivity or hyperarousal (i.e., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia) was heterogeneous. Common side effects included headaches and pain/discomfort, with rare but serious adverse events such as seizures and suicidal ideation/attempts. Risk of bias ratings indicated a collectively low risk according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations checklist (Meader et al., 2014). Literature suggests promise for dTMS as a beneficial alternative or add-on treatment for patients who do not respond well to traditional treatment, particularly for depressive episodes, OCD, and SUDs. Mixed evidence and limited clinical trials for other psychiatric and cognitive disorders suggest more extensive research is warranted. Future research should examine the durability of dTMS interventions and identify moderators of clinical efficacy.

Comparing different non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for bipolar depression treatment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising treatment for bipolar depression. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials on NIBS for treating bipolar depression (INPLASY No: 202340019). Eighteen articles (N = 617) were eligible for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F3 plus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F4 (a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4; SMD = -1.18, 95%CIs = -1.66 to -0.69, N = 77), high-definition tDCS over F3 (HD-tDCS-F3; -1.17, -2.00 to -0.35, 25), high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-dTMS; -0.81, -1.62 to -0.001, 25), and high frequency repetitive TMS over F3 plus low frequency repetitive TMS over F4 (HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4; -0.77, -1.43 to -0.11, 38) significantly improved depressive symptoms compared to sham controls. Only a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4 (OR = 4.53, 95%CIs = 1.51-13.65) and HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4 (4.69, 1.02-21.56) showed higher response rates. No active NIBS interventions exhibited significant differences in dropout or side effect rates, compared with sham controls.

Real-Time Computation of Brain E-Field for Enhanced Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Neuronavigation and Optimization

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) coil placement and pulse waveform current are often chosen to achieve a specified E-field dose on targeted brain regions. TMS neuronavigation could be improved by including real-time accurate distributions of the E-field dose on the cortex. We introduce a method and develop software for computing brain E-field distributions in real-time enabling easy integration into neuronavigation and with the same accuracy as 1st -order finite element method (FEM) solvers. Initially, a spanning basis set (< 400) of E-fields generated by white noise magnetic currents on a surface separating the head and permissible coil placements are orthogonalized to generate the modes. Subsequently, Reciprocity and Huygens' principles are utilized to compute fields induced by the modes on a surface separating the head and coil by FEM, which are used in conjunction with online (real-time) computed primary fields on the separating surface to evaluate the mode expansion. We conducted a comparative analysis of E-fields computed by FEM and in real-time for eight subjects, utilizing two head model types (SimNIBS's 'headreco' and 'mri2mesh' pipeline), three coil types (circular, double-cone, and Figure-8), and 1000 coil placements (48,000 simulations). The real-time computation for any coil placement is within 4 milliseconds (ms), for 400 modes, and requires less than 4 GB of memory on a GPU. Our solver is capable of computing E-fields within 4 ms, making it a practical approach for integrating E-field information into the neuronavigation systems without imposing a significant overhead on frame generation (20 and 50 frames per second within 50 and 20 ms, respectively).

Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) after two antidepressant treatment failures: meta-analysis of randomized sham-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Several meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of unilateral High-Frequency Left-sided (HFL) repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for individuals with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); however, results are contradictory due to heterogeneity of the included studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) of English language articles published since 2000 was performed in March 2022 on PubMed and Scopus databases. Empirical evidence on the relative efficacy of rTMS treatment compared with standard pharmacotherapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD) were extracted. Random effects models were used to assess the effects of rTMS on response and remission rates.

RESULTS

19 randomized double-blinded sham-controlled studies were included for quantitative analysis for response (n = 854 patients) and 9 studies for remission (n = 551 patients). The risk ratio (RR) for response and remission are 2.25 and 2.78, respectively for patients after two treatment failures using rTMS as add-on treatment compared to standard pharmacotherapy. Cochrane's Q test showed no significant heterogeneity. No publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS is significantly more effective than sham rTMS in TRD in response and remission outcomes and may be beneficial as an adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD after two treatment failures. This finding is consistent with previous meta-analyses; however, the effect size was smaller than in the formerly published literature.

Fast computational E-field dosimetry for transcranial magnetic stimulation using adaptive cross approximation and auxiliary dipole method (ACA-ADM)

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a coil to induce an electric field (E-field) in the brain and modulate its activity. Many applications of TMS call for the repeated execution of E-field solvers to determine the E-field induced in the brain for different coil placements. However, the usage of solvers for these applications remains impractical because each coil placement requires the solution of a large linear system of equations. We develop a fast E-field solver that enables the rapid evaluation of the E-field distribution for a brain region of interest (ROI) for a large number of coil placements, which is achieved in two stages. First, during the pre-processing stage, the mapping between coil placement and brain ROI E-field distribution is approximated from E-field results for a few coil placements. Specifically, we discretize the mapping into a matrix with each column having the ROI E-field samples for a fixed coil placement. This matrix is approximated from a few of its rows and columns using adaptive cross approximation (ACA). The accuracy, efficiency, and applicability of the new ACA approach are determined by comparing its E-field predictions with analytical and standard solvers in spherical and MRI-derived head models. During the second stage, the E-field distribution in the brain ROI from a specific coil placement is determined by the obtained rows and columns in milliseconds. For many applications, only the E-field distribution for a comparatively small ROI is required. For example, the solver can complete the pre-processing stage in approximately 4 hours and determine the ROI E-field in approximately 40 ms for a 100 mm diameter ROI with less than 2% error enabling its use for neuro-navigation and other applications. Highlight: We developed a fast solver for TMS computational E-field dosimetry, which can determine the ROI E-field in approximately 40 ms for a 100 mm diameter ROI with less than 2% error.

Brain stimulation treatment for bipolar disorder

AIMS

Bipolar disorders are clinically complex, chronic and recurrent disorders. Few treatment options are effective across hypomanic, manic, depressive and mixed states and as continuation or maintenance treatment after initial symptom remission. The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date overview of research on the efficacy, tolerability and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS).

METHODS

References included in this review were identified through multiple searches of the Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE and APA PsycINFO electronic databases for articles published from inception until February 2022. Published reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and recent studies were prioritised to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of research on brain stimulation in patients with bipolar disorders.

RESULTS

The evidence base for brain stimulation as an add-on or alternative to pharmacological and psychological treatments in patients with bipolar disorders is limited but rapidly expanding. Brain stimulation treatments represent an opportunity to treat all bipolar disorder states, including cognitive dysfunction during euthymic periods.

CONCLUSION

Whilst findings to date have been encouraging, larger randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify important questions regarding treatment efficacy and tolerability, the frequency of treatment-emergent affective switches and effects on cognitive function.

Case report: Rapid symptom resolution of a mixed affective state with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Bipolar major depressive episodes with mixed features are diagnosed in patients who meet the full criteria for a major depressive episode exhibiting three additional concurrent symptoms of hypomania or mania. Up to half of patients with bipolar disorder experience mixed episodes, which are more likely to be treatment-refractory than pure depression or mania/hypomania alone.

CASE

We present a 68-year-old female with Bipolar Type II Disorder with a four-month medication-refractory major depressive episode with mixed features referred for neuromodulation consultation. Previous failed medication trials over several years included lithium, valproate, lamotrigine, topiramate, and quetiapine. She had no history of treatment with neuromodulation. At the initial consultation, her baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was moderate in severity at 32. Her Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 22, with dysphoric hypomanic symptoms consisting of heightened irritability, verbosity and increased rate of speech, and decreased sleep. She declined electroconvulsive therapy but elected to receive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with a Neuronetics NeuroStar system, receiving nine daily sessions over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Standard settings of 120% MT, 10 Hz (4 sec on, 26 sec off), and 3,000 pulses/session were used. Her acute symptoms showed a brisk response, and at the final treatment, her repeat MADRS was 2, and YMRS was 0. The patient reported feeling "great," which she defined as feeling stable with minimal depression and hypomania for the first time in years.

CONCLUSION

Mixed episodes present a treatment challenge given their limited treatment options and diminished responses. Previous research has shown decreased efficacy of lithium and antipsychotics in mixed episodes with dysphoric mood such as the episode our patient experienced. One open-label study of low-frequency right-sided rTMS showed promising results in patients with treatment-refractory depression with mixed features, but the role of rTMS in the management of these episodes is largely unexplored. Given the concern for potential manic mood switches, further investigation into the laterality, frequency, anatomical target, and efficacy of rTMS for bipolar major depressive episodes with mixed features is warranted.

The Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulations for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Scoping Review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that involves the application of magnetic pulses on hyperactive or hypoactive cortical brain areas. rTMS is considered a high therapeutic tool in many neuropsychiatric conditions. Despite its wide and continuous usage for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, information about the use of rTMS in bipolar disorders is limited and not well-established in the literature. Objectives: This scoping review aims to explore the literature available regarding the application of rTMS for the management of bipolar disorders, to garner evidence in support of it uses in the management of bipolar disorders, and for recommendations on future clinical and research work. Method: We electronically conducted a data search in five research databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psych INFO, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) using all identified keywords across all the databases to identify evidence-based studies. Articles were included if they were published randomized control designs aimed at the use of rTMS in the management of bipolar disorders. Overall, nine studies were eligible for this review. The search results are up to date as of the final date of data search—20 December 2020. Only full-text published articles written in English were reviewed. Review articles on treatment with rTMS for conditions either than bipolar disorders were excluded. Conclusion: The application of rTMS intervention for bipolar disorders looks promising despite the diversity of its outcomes and its clinical significance. However, to be able to draw a definite conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of the technique, more randomized controlled studies with well-defined stimulation parameters need to be conducted with large sample sizes in the future.

Could bipolar depressed patients respond better to rTMS than unipolar depressed patients? A naturalistic, observational study

Previous studies of rTMS for bipolar depressed (BD) patients have yielded mixed results. In this retrospective, naturalistic, observational study, we reviewed charts of 317 patients undergoing rTMS treatment between 1/2015-2/2018, yielding 283 unipolar depressed (UD) and 34 BD patients. All were treated with a figure-of-8 coil, with either high-frequency (HF) left-sided, sequential bilateral (HF left-sided and low-frequency right-sided), or mixed protocols (switched from unilateral to bilateral mid-course).  Outcomes were the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Total number of treatments and initial PHQ-9 scores did not differ between groups. BD patients had greater PHQ-9 change by treatment conclusion than UD patients. GAD-7 changes showed no between-group differences overall. PHQ-9 changes differences between groups were only seen with unilateral treatment, not with bilateral or mixed protocols. Unilateral treatment resulted in 45% remission (9/20) for BD patients vs. 15% (24/160) for UD patients by treatment end. Response was seen in 80% (16/20) of the unilaterally-treated BD patients vs. 39% (62/160) in UD patients. Regression analyses within BD patients found that unilateral treatment, use of non-lithium mood stabilizers, male sex, and number of treatments predicted PHQ-9 improvement.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in bipolar disorder: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is commonly used in unipolar depression; yet, its evidence in bipolar disorder (BD) is limited. We sought to review the evidence on the use of rTMS across the different stages of BD.

METHODS

MEDLINE database was systematically searched using the PubMed interface following the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) randomized clinical trials (RCTs), open-label studies, and case series; (ii) specific evaluation of the treatment outcomes using psychometric scales; (iii) clinical studies in adults; and (iv) articles in the English language. The systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192788).

RESULTS

Thirty-one papers were included in the review. Most studies included participants diagnosed with a bipolar depressive episode (N = 24), have yielded mixed findings, and have yet to reach a consensus on the most effective rTMS protocol. Few studies examined the effect of rTMS during manic (N = 5) or mixed episode (N = 1), or as maintenance treatment (N = 1). The limited data thus far suggest rTMS to be relatively safe and well tolerated. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity among study designs, patients and control groups recruited, rTMS parameters, and outcome measures are among the most significant limitations to these studies.

CONCLUSION

The current data regarding the application of rTMS in BD patients remain limited. More adequately powered sham-controlled studies are required to verify its efficacy. Large-scale clinical trials are needed to also determine whether its effects extend to manic and mixed episodes, as well as its role in mood stabilization and amelioration of suicidal behavior.

Baseline Clinical and Neuroimaging Biomarkers of Treatment Response to High-Frequency rTMS Over the Left DLPFC for Resistant Depression

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has proven to be an efficient treatment option for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). However, the success rate of this method is still low, and the treatment outcome is unpredictable. The objective of this study was to explore clinical and structural neuroimaging factors as potential biomarkers of the efficacy of high-frequency (HF) rTMS (20 Hz) over the left dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex (DLPFC).

METHODS

We analyzed the records of 131 patients with mood disorders who were treated with rTMS and were assessed at baseline at the end of the stimulation and at 1 month after the end of the treatment. The response is defined as a 50% decrease in the MADRS score between the first and the last assessment. Each of these patients underwent a T1 MRI scan of the brain, which was subsequently segmented with FreeSurfer. Whole-brain analyses [Query, Design, Estimate, Contrast (QDEC)] were conducted and corrected for multiple comparisons. Additionally, the responder status was also analyzed using binomial multivariate regression models. The explored variables were clinical and anatomical features of the rTMS target obtained from T1 MRI: target-scalp distance, DLPFC gray matter thickness, and various cortical measures of interest previously studied.

RESULTS

The results of a binomial multivariate regression model indicated that depression type (p = 0.025), gender (p = 0.010), and the severity of depression (p = 0.027) were found to be associated with response to rTMS. Additionally, the resistance stage showed a significant trend (p = 0.055). Whole-brain analyses on volume revealed that the average volume of the left part of the superior frontal and the caudal middle frontal regions is associated with the response status. Other MRI-based measures are not significantly associated with response to rTMS in our population.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we investigated the clinical and neuroimaging biomarkers associated with responsiveness to high-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC in a large sample of patients with TRD. Women, patients with bipolar depressive disorder (BDD), and patients who are less resistant to HF rTMS respond better. Responders present a lower volume of the left part of the superior frontal gyrus and the caudal middle frontal gyrus. These findings support further investigation into the use of clinical variables and structural MRI as possible biomarkers of rTMS treatment response.

Hypomanic/manic switch after transcranial magnetic stimulation in mood disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nowadays there is an increasing use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) both in neurological and psychiatric fields. After Food and Drug Administration approval of TMS for the therapy of treatment-resistant depression, TMS has been widely used in the context of mood disorders (MD). However, growing reports regarding the possibility of developing hypomanic/manic switch (HMS) have generated concern regarding its use in MDs.

AIM

To investigate the actual risk of developing HMS due to TMS in the treatment of MD.

METHODS

We led our research on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on March 22, 2020, in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. Only double blind/single blind studies, written in English and focused on the TMS treatment of MD, were included. A meta-analysis of repetitive TMS protocol studies including HMS was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The assessment of Risk of Bias was done using Cochrane risk of bias tool. This protocol was registered on PROSPERO with the CRD42020175811 code.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in our meta-analysis: Twenty-one double blind randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four single blind-RCT (no. of subjects involved in active stimulation = 576; no. of subjects involved in sham protocol = 487). The most frequently treated pathology was major depressive episode/major depressive disorder, followed by resistant depression, bipolar depression and other MD. The majority of the studies used a repetitive TMS protocol, and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was the main target area. Side effects were reported in eight studies and HMS (described as greater energy, insomnia, irritability, anxiety, suicidal attempt) in four studies. When comparing active TMS vs sham treatment, the risk of developing HMS was not significantly different between conditions.

CONCLUSION

Applying the most usual protocols and the appropriate precautionary measures, TMS seems not to be related to HMS development.

Anomalous functional connectivity within the default-mode network in treatment-naive patients possessing first-episode major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have shown that the default-mode network (DMN) has a substantial role in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, there is a shortage of information regarding variations in the functional connectivity (FC) of the DMN of treatment-naive patients with first-episode MDD. The present study aims to explore the FC of the DMN in such patients.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 33 patients and 35 controls, paired regarding age, gender, education level, and health condition. Depression severity was assessed through the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), and subjects underwent evaluation during the resting-state through functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). To assess the result, we used FC and ICA. We used Spearman's correlation test to detect potential correlations between anomalous FC and severity of HAM-D scores.

RESULTS

We have found a decreased FC in the left medial orbitofrontal gyrus (MOFG) and right marginal gyrus (SMG) in depressive patients compared to controls. There was a negative correlation between abnormal FC in the right SMG and HAM-D scores. We have not found any increase in FC of the DMN in treatment-naive, first-episode of MDD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided evidence of a negative correlation between abnormal FC in the DMN and severity of depression symptoms measured by HAM-D in treatment-naive MDD patients. This finding could shed some light on the relevance of DMN for understanding the pathophysiology of cognitive impairment in MDD.

Advances in the psychopharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder type I

INTRODUCTION

Research into the pharmacologic management of bipolar type I illness continues to progress.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials performed with type I bipolar disorder in the years 2015 to August 2020 are reviewed. There are new indications for the use of cariprazine, for bipolar mania and depression, and a long-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole has also been approved for relapse prevention in bipolar illness. Most of the randomized clinical trials are effectiveness studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Over the 20 years from 1997 through 2016, the use of lithium and other mood stabilizers has declined by 50%, while the use of both second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and antidepressants has increased considerably. Over the same time period (1990-2017), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) increased by 54.4%, from 6.02 million in 1990 to 9.29 million in 2017 which is greater than the 47.74% increase in incidence of the disease, suggesting that the changes in prescribing patterns have not been helpful for our patients. Furthermore, recent effectiveness studies continue to confirm the superiority of lithium and other mood stabilizers in the management of bipolar illness for both psychiatric and medical outcomes, reaffirming their role as foundational treatments in the management of type I bipolar disorder. Clinicians need to reassess their prescribing habits.

Efficacy of Active vs Sham Intermittent Theta Burst Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Patients With Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Major depressive episodes in bipolar disorder are common and debilitating. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is well established in the treatment of major depressive disorder, and the intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) protocol is replacing conventional protocols because of noninferiority and reduced delivery time. However, iTBS has not been adequately studied in bipolar disorder and, therefore, its efficacy is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether iTBS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) is safe and efficacious in the treatment of acute bipolar depression.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a double-blind, 4-week, randomized clinical trial of iTBS targeting the LDLPFC. Two Canadian academic centers recruited patients between 2016 and 2020. Adults with bipolar disorder type I or type II experiencing an acute major depressive episode were eligible if they had not benefited from a first-line treatment for acute bipolar depression recommended by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments and were currently treated with a mood stabilizer, an atypical antipsychotic, or their combination. Seventy-one participants were assessed for eligibility, and 37 were randomized to daily sham iTBS or active iTBS using a random number sequence, stratified according to current pharmacotherapy. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Four weeks of daily active iTBS (120% resting motor threshold) or sham iTBS to the LDLPFC. Nonresponders were eligible for 4 weeks of open-label iTBS.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the change in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale from baseline to study end. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, remission, and treatment-emergent mania or hypomania.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated for futility after 37 participants (23 women [62%]; mean [SD] age, 43.86 [13.87] years; age range, 20-68 years) were randomized, 19 to sham iTBS and 18 to active iTBS. There were no significant differences in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score changes (least squares mean difference between groups, -1.36 [95% CI, -8.92 to 6.19; P = .91] in favor of sham iTBS), and rates of clinical response were low in both the double-blind phase (3 of 19 participants [15.8%] in the sham iTBS group and 3 of 18 participants [16.7%] in the active iTBS group) and open-label phase (5 of 21 participants [23.8%]). One active iTBS participant had a treatment emergent hypomania, and a second episode occurred during open-label treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

iTBS targeting the LDLPFC is not efficacious in the treatment of acute bipolar depression in patients receiving antimanic or mood stabilizing agents. Additional research is required to understand how transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment protocols differ in efficacy between unipolar and bipolar depression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02749006.

The efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has established efficacy in the treatment of unipolar depression and a growing evidence base in the treatment of bipolar depression. The objective of this study was to provide an estimate of the efficacy of rTMS in bipolar depression as an up to date synthesis of this literature is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the sham-controlled randomized controlled trial (RCT) literature examining rTMS in bipolar depression. Studies were included if they included participants with bipolar depression in both sham- and active arms. The primary outcome parameter was rate of clinical response, defined as a 50% reduction as compared to baseline, on an established depression rating scale. Quantitative synthesis was performed using the Maentel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 274 patients from 14 studies were retained in the quantitative synthesis. The response rates were higher in rTMS compared to sham treatment (odds ratio (OR) = 2.72. 95%CI: 1.44-5.14). When stimulation protocols were analysed separately, statistically significant clinical response was only observed for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (OR = 2.57, 95%CI: 1.17-5.66).

LIMITATIONS

Most data was extracted from trials including very few participants with bipolar depression (predominantly unipolar depression samples). Large confirmatory RCTs of rTMS specifically for bipolar depression are lacking.

CONCLUSION

rTMS seems effective in the treatment of bipolar depression, but dedicated and adequately powered RCTs are needed in order to firmly conclude that rTMS should be offered routinely for the treatment of bipolar depression.

A retrospective analysis of bipolar depression treated with transcranial magnetic stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options are limited for patients with bipolar depression. Antidepressants added to mood stabilizers even carry risks of precipitating mixed/manic episodes. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may provide a safe and effective option for these patients.

METHODS

Database analysis of the TMS Service at Sheppard Pratt Health System identified patients with bipolar disorder type I (BD1) or II (BD2) in a pure depressive phase at initiation of TMS. Records were reviewed for response and remission rates based on MADRS scores, time to effect, and adverse events, notably treatment-emergent affective switching. All had failed at least two prior treatments for depression, were currently on at least one mood stabilizer and off antidepressants. Stimulation parameters targeted left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: 120% motor threshold, 10 pulses per second (pps) × 4s, intertrain interval (ITI) 26s, 75 trains (37.5 min/session) for 3,000 pps total, 5 sessions/week for 30 total treatments, or until remission criteria were met.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients with BD were identified, representing 15% of the total TMS population. 77% of those who completed a course of TMS met response criteria, and 41% of subjects who completed at least 25 treatments met remission criteria. Subjects with BD1 were more likely to respond, remit, or suffer an adverse event than those with BD2. No patient met clinical criteria for a manic/mixed episode, but four (10%) discontinued due to concerns of activation.

CONCLUSIONS

TMS is effective in the bipolar depressed population where episode focused intervention can be specifically offered. Risk of psychomotor agitation must be closely monitored.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective in treating unipolar depression. However, the efficacy of rTMS in bipolar disorder (BD) is unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and tolerability of rTMS for both depressive and manic phases in BD.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL databases were searched for controlled trials on treatment of BD with rTMS. Primary outcomes included changes in depression or mania scores, response and remission rates. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and functioning assessment. We used random-effects model, Hedge's g, risk differences (RDs) and the number needed to treat (NNT).

RESULTS

Eleven randomized sham-controlled studies were included, with a total of 345 patients with BD (bipolar depression = 257, mania = 86, mixed affective = 2). Trials of rTMS in bipolar depression (N = 8) demonstrated small but significant improvement in depression scores [standardized mean difference = 0.302, p < 0.05], compared to control group. Furthermore, rTMS brought a higher remission rate than sham-controls [RD = 0.104 ± 0.044, p < 0.05, NNT = 10; and a trend of greater response rate [RD = 0.074 ± 0.039, p = 0.06]. Results were inconclusive for effect of rTMS in mania. In both depressive and manic groups, no serious adverse events were reported. Risk of treatment-emergent mania appeared low.

LIMITATIONS

There was limited number of eligible primary studies, with variable randomization procedures.

CONCLUSION

rTMS appears safe and effective in treating bipolar depression. More stringent RCTs are necessary for concrete conclusion about efficacy in mania.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a debilitating mood disorder marked by manic, hypomanic and/or mixed or depressive episodes. It affects approximately 1-2% of the population and is linked to high rates of suicide, functional impairment and poorer quality of life. Presently, treatment options for BD are limited. There is a strong evidence base for pharmacological (e.g., lithium) and psychological (e.g., psychoeducation) treatments; however, both of these pose challenges for treatment outcomes (e.g., non-response, side-effects, limited access). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, is a recommended treatment for unipolar depression, but it is unclear whether rTMS is an effective, safe and well tolerated treatment in people with BD. This article reviews the extant literature on the use of rTMS to treat BD across different mood states. We found 34 studies in total (N = 611 patients), with most assessing bipolar depression (n = 26), versus bipolar mania (n = 5), mixed state bipolar (n = 2) or those not in a current affective episode (n = 1). Across all studies, there appears to be a detectable signal of efficacy for rTMS treatment, as most studies report that rTMS treatment reduced bipolar symptoms. Importantly, within the randomised controlled trial (RCT) study designs, most reported that rTMS was not superior to sham in the treatment of bipolar depression. However, these RCTs are based on small samples (NBD ⩽ 52). Reported side effects of rTMS in BD include headache, dizziness and sleep problems. Ten studies (N = 14 patients) reported cases of affective switching; however, no clear pattern of potential risk factors for affective switching emerged. Future adequately powered, sham-controlled trials are needed to establish the ideal rTMS treatment parameters to help better determine the efficacy of rTMS for the treatment of BD.

An update on the clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an increasingly used treatment for patients with depression. The use of rTMS in depression is supported by over 20 years of clinical trials. There has been a significant increase in knowledge around the use of rTMS in recent years.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to review the use of rTMS in depression to provide an update for rTMS practitioners and clinicians interested in the clinical use of this treatment.

METHODS

A targeted review of the literature around the use of rTMS treatment of depression with a specific focus on studies published in the last 3 years.

RESULTS

High-frequency rTMS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is an effective treatment for acute episodes of major depressive disorder. There are several additional methods of rTMS delivery that are supported by clinical trials and meta-analyses but no substantive evidence that any one approach is any more effective than any other. rTMS is effective in unipolar depression and most likely bipolar depression. rTMS courses may be repeated in the management of depressive relapse but there is less evidence for the use of rTMS in the maintenance phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The science around the use of rTMS is rapidly evolving and there is a considerable need for practitioners to remain abreast of the current state of this literature and its implications for clinical practice. rTMS is an effective antidepressant treatment but its optimal use should be continually informed by knowledge of the state of the art.

Augmentative Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) in the Acute Treatment of Poor Responder Depressed Patients: A Comparison Study Between High and Low Frequency Stimulation

Background:

While the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is well established, the debate is still open in relation to bipolar depression and to a possible different effectiveness of high vs. low stimulation. The present study was aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and tolerability of different protocols of augmentative rTMS in a sample of patients with current Major Depressive Episode (MDE), poor drug response/treatment resistance and a diagnosis of MDD or bipolar disorder.

Methods:

Thirty-three patients were recruited in a 4-week, blind-rater, rTMS trial and randomised to the following three groups of stimulation: (1) (n = 10) right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) 1 HZ, 110% of the motor threshold (MT), 420 stimuli/day; (2) (n = 10) right DLPFC, 1 Hz, 110% MT, 900 stimuli/day; (3) (n = 13) left DLPFC, 10 Hz, 80% MT, 750 stimuli/day.

Results:

Twenty-nine patients completed the treatment, showing a significant reduction of primary outcome measures (HAM-D, MADRS and CGI-S total scores: t = 8.1, P < 0.001; t = 8.6, P < 0.001; t = 4.6, P < 0.001 respectively). No significant differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability were found between high vs. low frequency and between unipolar and bipolar patients. Side effects were reported by 21% of the sample. One of the 4 dropouts was caused by a hypomanic switch.

Conclusions:

Augmentative rTMS appeared to be effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression with features of poor drug response/treatment resistance, showing a comparable effectiveness profile between protocols of high and low frequency stimulation.

Twice-daily neuronavigated intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar depression: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Pilot Study

The safety and efficacy of neuronavigated intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) in patients with bipolar depression has not yet been investigated. We hypothesized the superiority of active iTBS over sham. Twenty-six patients were randomly allocated to receive either active (n=12) or sham (n=14) iTBS. Response and remission rates according to changes in depression MADRS score were high following active iTBS (72% and 42% for response and remission rates, respectively), but no significant difference was found after sham stimulation (42%and 25%). No adverse events were observed. This study revealed the safety and tolerability of twice daily iTBS in patients with bipolar depression. Larger controlled studies are warranted to prove iTBS superiority in treatment-resistant bipolar depression.

Clinical applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Many patients with bipolar disorder (BD) fail to experience benefit following traditional pharmacotherapy, necessitating alternative treatment options that will enable such patients to achieve remission. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a relatively new, noninvasive neuromodulation technique that involves the application of magnetic pulses on hyperactive or hypoactive cortical brain areas. We evaluated the existing literature on TMS as a treatment for BD across varied mood states.

METHODS

We searched PubMed up to October 2018 for original data articles published in English that evaluated outcomes in a bipolar sample across depressive, manic, mixed, and maintenance phases of BD.

RESULTS

Clinical trials of TMS for BD particularly suggest the potential of repetitive TMS for reducing depressive symptoms. Studies of TMS for mania have yielded more mixed findings. Few studies have evaluated TMS in other phases of the bipolar illness. TMS is generally associated with mild side effects though, in a few studies, it has been shown to contribute to a manic switch in previously depressed bipolar patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a promising approach for treating patients with BD who have failed to respond to pharmacological or psychosocial treatment. Future research should more clearly elucidate which TMS protocols may be most effective for a given bipolar patient.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for depressive disorders: current knowledge and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After three decades of clinical research on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), major depressive disorder (MDD) has proven to be the primary field of application. MDD poses a major challenge for health systems worldwide, emphasizing the need for improving clinical efficacy of existing rTMS applications and promoting the development of novel evidence-based rTMS treatment approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several promising new avenues have been proposed: novel stimulation patterns, targets, and coils; combinatory treatments and maintenance; and personalization and stratification of rTMS parameters, and treatment of subpopulations.

SUMMARY

This opinion review summarizes current knowledge in the field and addresses the future direction of rTMS treatment in MDD, facilitating the establishment of this clinical intervention method as a standard treatment option and continuing to improve response and remission rates, and take the necessary steps to personalize rTMS-based treatment approaches.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in anxiety and trauma-related disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been evaluated as an effective treatment option for patients with major depressive disorder. However, there are limited studies that have evaluated the efficacy of TMS for other neuropsychiatric disorders such as anxiety and trauma-related disorders. We reviewed the literature that has evaluated TMS as a treatment for anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

METHODS

We searched for articles published up to December 2017 in Embase, Medline, and ISI Web of Science databases, following the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles (n = 520) evaluating TMS in anxiety and trauma-related disorders were screened and a small subset of these that met the eligibility criteria (n = 17) were included in the systematic review, of which nine evaluated TMS in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), four in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), two in specific phobia (SP), and two in panic disorder (PD). The meta-analysis was performed with PTSD and GAD since PD and SP had an insufficient number of studies and sample sizes.

RESULTS

Among anxiety and trauma-related disorders, TMS has been most widely studied as a treatment for PTSD. TMS demonstrated large overall treatment effect for both PTSD (ES = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.42, -0.34) and GAD (ES = -2.06, 95% CI: -2.64, -1.48), including applying high frequency over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Since few studies have evaluated TMS for SP and PD, few conclusions can be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that TMS may be an effective treatment for GAD and PTSD.

Augmenting pharmacotherapy with neuromodulation techniques for the treatment of bipolar disorder: a focus on the effects of mood stabilizers on cortical excitability

Introduction: Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics have been demonstrated to be effective in Bipolar Disorder, with lithium as the gold standard. However, the presence of adverse events and treatment-resistance is still a relevant issue. To this respect, the use of brain stimulation techniques may be considered as an augmentation strategy, with both Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) having shown some level of efficacy in bipolar patients although clinical trials are still not sufficient to draw any conclusion. Areas covered: The authors have conducted a systematic review of the literature, in order to evaluate the role of mood stabilizers on neural activity and cortical excitability. Furthermore, the article reviews neuromodulation techniques and highlights the potential of integrating pharmacological first-line therapies with these techniques to treat BD patients. Expert opinion: The combination of neuromodulation techniques and available pharmacotherapies is a valuable opportunity which is not undermined by specific effects on cortical excitability and could improve BD patient outcome. Neurostimulation techniques may be considered safer than antidepressant treatments in BD, with a lower level of manic switches and may represent a new treatment strategy in BD depressive episodes.

Do bipolar disorder soft signs impact outcomes following Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) therapy for depression?

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is not currently FDA approved for depressed patients with bipolar disorder (BD), but many unipolar depressed patients presenting for TMS have soft signs of bipolarity. It is not known whether or not these soft signs portend differential outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between BD soft signs and TMS treatment outcomes in a naturalistic treatment setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of MDD patients (n = 105) treated with TMS. BD diathesis was defined by responses to a modified version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire and family history.

RESULTS

TMS response rates for the group with BD diathesis and the group without were equivalent using two self-report depression severity scales. Remission rate was significantly lower for the bipolar soft signs group (13.5% versus 30.2%; p = 0.04) on one scale. This result does not hold when corrected for multiple comparisons. We did not observe switch to mania.

LIMITATIONS

These data are limited to patients diagnosed with unipolar depression with "soft" bipolar features defined by subthreshold symptoms. The results cannot be extrapolated to patients with a full bipolar diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Bipolar diathesis in MDD is not a safety concern but may lead to somewhat lower remission rates when considering TMS treatment.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increases serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor and decreases interleukin-1β and tumor necrosis factor-α in elderly patients with refractory depression

Objective

To investigate the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on serum levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), interleukin (IL)-1β, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in elderly patients with refractory depression.

Methods

A total of 58 elderly patients diagnosed with refractory depression between January 2015 and December 2016 were divided randomly into two groups: 29 patients who received rTMS and 29 controls without rTMS. Thirty healthy individuals were also enrolled and all received rTMS. Serum levels of BDNF, IL-1β, and TNF-α were measured before the study (0 days), and at 48 hours and 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after the first TMS treatment.

Results

BDNF levels gradually increased with treatment duration in the rTMS group and were significantly higher compared with the control group. In contrast, IL-1β and TNF-α levels gradually decreased and were significantly lower than in the control group. None of the serum factors were affected by rTMS in the healthy individuals. BDNF levels were negatively correlated and IL-1β and TNF-α levels were positively correlated with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 scores.

Conclusion

These results suggest that rTMS may increase BDNF and decrease IL-1β and TNF-α serum levels in elderly patients with refractory depression.

Clinical Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is being investigated for psychiatric disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and both phases of bipolar disorder. Case series, open trials, and randomized controlled studies have demonstrated preliminary support for treating PTSD with rTMS alone as well as with rTMS combined with psychotherapy. Similarly, there is some evidence that GAD can be treated with rTMS. The results for treating either phase of bipolar disorder are mixed with most of the current studies showing lack of benefit over sham. Further study is required before rTMS can be recommended for these disorders.

5 Hz Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder comorbid with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Standard clinical protocols for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) apply 10 Hz pulses over left prefrontal cortex, yet little is known about the effects of rTMS in more diagnostically complex depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is commonly comorbid with MDD, and while rTMS has been shown to alleviate PTSD symptoms in preliminary studies, ideal parameters remain unclear. We conducted a prospective, open-label study of 5 Hz rTMS for patients with comorbid PTSD + MDD and hypothesized stimulation would reduce symptoms of both disorders.

METHODS

Outpatients (N = 40) with PTSD + MDD and at least moderate global severity were enrolled. 5 Hz rTMS included up to 40 daily sessions followed by a 5-session taper. Symptoms were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Self-Report (IDS-SR). Baseline-to-endpoint changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population included 35 participants. Stimulation significantly reduced PTSD symptoms (PCL-5 baseline mean ± SD score 52.2 ± 13.1 versus endpoint 34.0 ± 21.6; p < .001); 23 patients (48.6%) met a pre-defined categorical PTSD response criteria. MDD symptoms also improved significantly (IDS-SR, baseline 47.8 ± 11.9 to endpoint 30.9 ± 18.9; p < .001); 15 patients (42.9%) demonstrated categorical response and 12 (34.3%) remitted. PTSD and MDD symptom change was highly correlated (r = 0.91, p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Unblinded single-arm study, with modest sample size.

CONCLUSION

Significant and clinically meaningful reductions in both MDD and PTSD symptoms were observed following stimulation. The preliminary efficacy of 5 Hz rTMS for both symptom domains in patients with comorbid disorders supports future controlled studies.

Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols

Introduction: rTMS has been proven effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions, with class A (definite efficacy) evidence for treatment of depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). The efficacy in stimulation protocols is, however, quite heterogeneous. Saturation of neuronal firing by HFrTMS without allowing time for recovery may lead to neuronal response failures (NRFs) that compromise the efficacy of stimulation with higher frequencies.

Objectives: To examine the efficacy of different rTMS temporal stimulation patterns focusing on a possible upper stimulation limit related to response failures. Protocol patterns were derived from published clinical studies on therapeutic rTMS for depression and pain. They were compared with conduction failures in cell cultures.

Methodology: From 57 papers using protocols rated class A for depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014) we extracted Inter-train interval (ITI), average frequency, total duration and total number of pulses and plotted them against the percent improvement on the outcome scale. Specifically, we compared 10 Hz trains with ITIs of 8 s (protocol A) and 26 s (protocol B) in vitro on cultured cortical neurons.

Results: In the in vitro experiments, protocol A with 8-s ITIs resulted in more frequent response failures, while practically no response failures occurred with protocol B (26-s intervals). The HFrTMS protocol analysis exhibited no significant effect of ITIs on protocol efficiency.

Discussion: In the neuronal culture, longer ITIs appeared to allow the neuronal response to recover. In the available human dataset on both depression and chronic pain, data concerning shorter ITIs is does not allow a significant conclusion.

Significance: NRF may interfere with the efficacy of rTMS stimulation protocols when the average stimulation frequency is too high, proposing ITIs as a variable in rTMS protocol efficacy. Clinical trials are necessary to examine effect of shorter ITIs on the clinical outcome in a controlled setting.

An update on adjunctive treatment options for bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Bipolar disorder is a complex illness often requiring combinations of therapies to successfully treat symptoms. In recent years, there have been significant advancements in a number of therapies for bipolar disorder. It is therefore timely to provide an overview of current adjunctive therapeutic options to help treating clinicians to inform their patients and work towards optimal outcomes.

METHODS

Publications were identified from PubMed searches on bipolar disorder and pharmacotherapy, nutraceuticals, hormone therapy, psychoeducation, interpersonal and social rhythm therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, e-Health and brain stimulation techniques. Relevant articles in these areas were selected for further review. This paper provides a narrative review of adjunctive treatment options and is not a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

A number of pharmacotherapeutic, psychological and neuromodulation treatment options are available. These have varying efficacy but all have shown benefit to people with bipolar disorder. Due to the complex nature of treating the disorder, combination treatments are often required. Adjunctive treatments to traditional pharmacological and psychological therapies are proving useful in closing the gap between initial symptom remission and full functional recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that response to monotherapy is often inadequate, combination regimens for bipolar disorder are typical. Correspondingly, psychiatric research is working towards a better understanding of the disorder's underlying biology. Therefore, treatment options are changing and adjunctive therapies are being increasingly recognized as providing significant tools to improve patient outcomes. Towards this end, this paper provides an overview of novel treatments that may improve clinical outcomes for people with bipolar disorder.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on placebo response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression trials

BACKGROUND

Although several studies indicate that placebo response is large to antidepressant pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder (MDD), no updated meta-analysis has quantified the magnitude of the placebo (sham) response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in MDD yet.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on this issue in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with MDD; and to explore potential moderators.

METHODOLOGY

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception up to March 15, 2017 for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of any rTMS modality compared to sham intervention in participants with acute depressive episodes. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to estimate risks. We estimated the placebo effect size (Hedges's g, random-effects model) response using placebo groups baseline and endpoint depressive symptom scores. Meta-regressions have been employed to explore potential moderators of response.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies met eligibility criteria (N=1328; mean age, 47years; 57% females). Placebo response was large (g=0.8, 95% CI=0.65-0.95, p<0.01) regardless of the modality of intervention. Placebo response was directly associated with publication year and depression improvement of the active group, and inversely associated with higher levels of treatment-resistant depression. Other moderators, including gender, age, and stimulator type, were not associated with the outcome. Overall, 24.6%, 67.2%, and 8.2% of studies had an overall low, unclear, and high bias risk, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Placebo response in rTMS depression trials was large and associated with depression improvement of the active treatment group. Such result suggests that excluding placebo responders with a run-in phase may not confer advantage since response to 'active' rTMS may decrease as well. Moreover, placebo response may be a component of therapeutic response to rTMS in MDD. In addition, placebo response increase over time could indicate improvement in rTMS trial designs, including better sham rTMS methods.

Monitoring cerebral hemodynamic change during transcranial ultrasound stimulation using optical intrinsic signal imaging

Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (tUS) is a promising non-invasive approach to modulate brain circuits. The application is gaining popularity, however the full effect of ultrasound stimulation is still unclear and further investigation is needed. This study aims to apply optical intrinsic signal imaging (OISI) for the first time, to simultaneously monitor the wide-field cerebral hemodynamic change during tUS on awake animal with high spatial and temporal resolution. Three stimulation paradigms were delivered using a single-element focused transducer operating at 425 kHz in pulsed mode having the same intensity (I_SPPA = 1.84 W/cm², I_SPTA = 129 mW/cm²) but varying pulse repetition frequencies (PRF). The results indicate a concurrent hemodynamic change occurring with all actual tUS but not under a sham stimulation. The stimulation initiated the increase of oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) and decrease of deoxygenated hemoglobin (RHb). A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found in the amplitude change of hemodynamics evoked by varying PRF. Moreover, the acoustic stimulation was able to trigger a global as well as local cerebral hemodynamic alteration in the mouse cortex. Thus, the implementation of OISI offers the possibility of directly investigating brain response in an awake animal during tUS through cerebral hemodynamic change.

The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation on migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails

OBJECTIVES

As a non-invasive therapy, whether transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is effective on migraine. This article was aimed to assess the efficacy of TMS on migraine based on randomized controlled trails (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases for published studies which compared TMS group with sham group, conducted a meta-analysis of all RCTs.

RESULTS

Five studies, consisting of 313 migraine patients, were identified. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective for the acute treatment of migraine with aura after the first attack (p = 0.02). And, the efficacy of TMS on chronic migraine was not significant (OR 2.93; 95% CI 0.71-12.15; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

TMS is effective for migraine based on the studies included in the article.

Emerging areas of transcranial magnetic stimulation use in psychiatry

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is most widely known clinically as a treatment for medication-refractory major depressive disorder, but it holds promise in a number of other areas. In addition to emerging neurologic areas of investigation such as in mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease and stroke rehab, novel approaches to psychiatric conditions are also being explored. This review provides a critical condensation of the available data assessing the efficacy of TMS in the treatment of other psychiatric conditions, namely bipolar disorder, substance use, post-traumatic stress disorder and other anxiety disorders. Each section details the field's current accumulation of evidence of the respective condition's pathophysiology in the context of a discussion of the relevant therapeutic target(s) of TMS. Each section then reviews both positive and negative studies evaluating TMS in clinical practice. Given the relative tolerability and proven efficacy of TMS in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), further study to determine its therapeutic effect in other psychiatric entities is warranted.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.

Clinical and demographic predictors of response to rTMS treatment in unipolar and bipolar depressive disorders

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies investigated predictors of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) response in depressive disorders but there is still limited knowledge about clinical predictors. Moreover, predictors of rTMS response in bipolar depression (BDD) are less studied than unipolar depression (UDD).

METHODS

We performed a binary logistic regression analysis in 248 patients with depressive disorders (unipolar N=102, bipolar N=146) who received 20 sessions of DLPFC rTMS (High-frequency rTMS, low-frequency rTMS, bilateral rTMS) to investigate significant clinical and demographic predictors of rTMS response. We also investigated effects of depression type, response (yes, no) and time on reducing somatic and cognitive-affective symptoms of patients.

RESULTS

Depression type (unipolar vs. bipolar) did not have a significant effect on rTMS response. 45% of all patients, 51.5% of UDD patients and 41% of BDD patients, responded to rTMS treatment. Age was the only significant demographic predictor of treatment response in all patients. Cognitive-affective symptoms, compared to somatic symptoms were significant predictors for treatment response to rTMS. Common and unique clinical predictor for UDD and BDD were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger patients and those with cognitive-affective rather than somatic symptoms benefit more from DLPFC rTMS treatment. rTMS is effective in UDD and BDD patients. Patients should be selected based on clinical and demographic profile.

SIGNIFICANCE

Findings are based on the largest thus far reported sample of patients with depressive disorders that received DLPFC rTMS.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.

Brain stimulation treatments in bipolar disorder: A review of the current literature

OBJECTIVES

Brain stimulation techniques are non-pharmacologic strategies which offer additional therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The purpose of this paper is to review the current literature regarding the use of brain stimulation in resistant bipolar disorder (BD), with particular reference to hypomanic/manic symptoms.

METHODS

Keywords pertaining to the brain simulation techniques used in the treatment of depression (either unipolar or bipolar) along with their role in regard to hypomanic/manic symptoms were used to conduct an electronic search of the literature. Pertinent findings were identified by the authors and reviewed.

RESULTS

Brain stimulation techniques represent a valid therapeutic option in TRD. They have been extensively studied in unipolar depression and, to a minor extent, in the depressive phase of BD, showing encouraging but often limited results. With exception of electroconvulsive therapy, the efficacy of brain stimulation in the treatment of manic symptoms of bipolar patients is still uncertain and needs to be fully evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Brain stimulation in BD is derived from its use in unipolar depression. However, there are many important differences between these two disorders and more studies with a systematic approach need to be conducted on larger samples of bipolar patients with treatment-resistant characteristics.

Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with quetiapine in treating bipolar II depression: a randomized, double-blinded, control study

The clinical and cognitive responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in bipolar II depressed patients remain unclear. In this study, thirty-eight bipolar II depressed patients were randomly assigned into three groups: (i) left high-frequency (n = 12), (ii) right low-frequency (n = 13), (iii) sham stimulation (n = 13), and underwent four-week rTMS with quetiapine concomitantly. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at baseline and weekly intervals using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Cognitive functioning was assessed before and after the study with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Stroop Word-Color Interference Test (Stroop), and Trail Making Test (TMT). Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, the mean scores of both the HDRS-17 and the MADRS significantly decreased over the 4-week trial, which did not differ among the three groups. Exploratory analyses revealed no differences in factor scores of HDRS-17s, or in response or remission rates. Scores of WCST, Stroop, or TMT did not differ across the three groups. These findings indicated active rTMS combined with quetiapine was not superior to quetiapine monotherapy in improving depressive symptoms or cognitive performance in patients with bipolar II depression.

A negative double-blind controlled trial of sequential bilateral rTMS in the treatment of bipolar depression

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To explore the therapeutic benefit of sequential bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of bipolar depression.

METHOD

A 2 arm randomized controlled parallel design trial comparing the use of active sequential bilateral rTMS to a sham form of stimulation in 49 patients with bipolar disorder and treatment resistant depression.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in mean reduction in depression rating scale scores or response rates between active and sham stimulation.

LIMITATIONS

The study was of limited sample size and the use of bilateral rTMS limited generalizability to other forms of rTMS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides no support to the use of active sequential bilateral rTMS in the treatment of the depressive phase of bipolar affective disorder. Although this result is not definitive, we suggest that future research may be better focused on trials evaluating the use of unilateral types of rTMS.

Electrophysiological correlates of bilateral and unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with bipolar depression

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been demonstrated to have efficacy in the treatment of unipolar depression but limited research has explored the efficacy of rTMS in bipolar depression. Therefore, we conducted a comparative clinical trial evaluating clinical responses to prefrontal bilateral and unilateral rTMS in patients suffering from bipolar depression. We hypothesized that, 1) the response to the treatment would be associated with a decrease in the frequency of beta waves, 2) bilateral stimulation of the cortex would bring about more extensive changes in brain activity than unilateral stimulation, and 3) bilateral stimulation is more effective than unilateral. Thirty patients with bipolar depression were divided into two groups. Bilateral Group (n=15) who received rTMS in the left DLPFC (10Hz) and right DLPFC (1-Hz), and unilateral group (n=15) who received the stimulation only in the right DLPFC (1-Hz) during 20 treatment sessions. The proportion of responders in the bilateral stimulation group was significantly higher than that in the unilateral group [80% versus 47%]. The remission rate was 40% in the bilateral group and 40% in the unilateral group (not significant). In the responders to bilateral rTMS treatment, a significant reduction of alpha1-2, beta 1-3, and gamma frequencies were observed in medial and superior frontal and cingulate gyrus . Responders to the unilateral treatment showed decrease of gamma frequency in postcentral gyrus, precuneus, superior and inferior parietal lobule, Cuneus and angular gyrus. In conclusion, we found that bilateral stimulation was more effective than the unilateral stimulation and evidence that beta frequency activity could possibly be used as a marker for response to rTMS.

Emergent treatments based on the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder: A selective review

Bipolar disorder is a chronic psychiatric disorder that is a cause of significant symptomatology even in the setting of optimal treatment. Most current treatments are developed from serendipity, and not based on known pathophysiology. In this review we examine a number of somatic and pharmacologic therapies that are poised to become part of the armamentarium of interventions to treat bipolar illness. As a group, these interventions are derived from a growing understanding of the biological underpinnings of bipolar disorders. We will look at emergent treatments based on our understanding of the molecular biology, neuroanatomy, and the genetics of bipolar disorder.

Neurostimulation for cognitive rehabilitation in stroke (NeuroCog): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Stroke patients may present severe cognitive impairments, primarily related to executive functions. Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising results, with neuromodulatory and neuroplastic effects. This study is a double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial aiming to compare the long-term effects of stimulation in two different cognitive regions after a stroke.

Methods/Design

Sixty patients who suffer from chronic strokes will be randomized into one of four groups: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cingulo-opercular network, motor primary cortex and sham stimulation. Each group will receive transcranial direct current stimulation at an intensity of 2 mA for 20 minutes daily for 10 consecutive days. Patients will be assessed with a Dysexecutive Questionnaire, Semantic Fluency Test, categorical verbal fluency and Go-no go tests, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, Letter Comparison and Pattern Comparison Tasks at baseline and after their tenth stimulation session. Those who achieve clinical improvement with neurostimulation will be invited to receive treatment for 12 months as part of a follow-up study.

Discussion

Long-term stimulation could be analyzed in regard to possible adaptive changes on plasticity after structural brain damage and if these changes are different in terms of clinical improvement when applied to two important cognitive centers.

Trials registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02315807. 9 December 2014.

A systematic review of non-motor rTMS induced motor cortex plasticity

Motor cortex excitability can be measured by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can induce neuroplastic effects in stimulated and in functionally connected cortical regions. Due to its ability to non-invasively modulate cortical activity, rTMS has been investigated for the treatment of various neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, such studies revealed a high variability of both clinical and neuronal effects induced by rTMS. In order to better elucidate this meta-plasticity, rTMS-induced changes in motor cortex excitability have been monitored in various studies in a pre-post stimulation design. Here, we give a literature review of studies investigating motor cortex excitability changes as a neuronal marker for rTMS effects over non-motor cortical areas. A systematic literature review in April 2014 resulted in 29 articles in which motor cortex excitability was assessed before and after rTMS over non-motor areas. The majority of the studies focused on the stimulation of one of three separate cortical areas: the prefrontal area (17 studies), the cerebellum (8 studies), or the temporal cortex (3 studies). One study assessed the effects of multi-site rTMS. Most studies investigated healthy controls but some also stimulated patients with neuropsychiatric conditions (e.g., affective disorders, tinnitus). Methods and findings of the identified studies were highly variable showing no clear systematic pattern of interaction of non-motor rTMS with measures of motor cortex excitability. Based on the available literature, the measurement of motor cortex excitability changes before and after non-motor rTMS has only limited value in the investigation of rTMS related meta-plasticity as a neuronal state or as a trait marker for neuropsychiatric diseases. Our results do not suggest that there are systematic alterations of cortical excitability changes during rTMS treatment, which calls into question the practice of re-adjusting the stimulation intensity according to the motor threshold over the course of the treatment.