Effect of augmentatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: randomized controlled study

Evidence from Indian studies on safety and efficacy of therapeutic transcranial magnetic stimulation across neuropsychiatric disorders- A systematic review and meta-analysis

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is potentially effective as an augmentation strategy in the treatment of many neuropsychiatric conditions. Several Indian studies have been conducted in this regard. We aimed to quantitatively synthesize evidence from Indian studies assessing efficacy and safety of rTMS across broad range of neuropsychiatric conditions. Fifty two studies- both randomized controlled and non-controlled studies were included for a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Pre-post intervention effects of rTMS efficacy were estimated in "active only" rTMS treatment arms/groups and "active vs sham" (sham-controlled) studies using pooled Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs). The outcomes were 'any depression', depression in unipolar/bipolar depressive disorder, depression in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), depression in schizophrenia, schizophrenia symptoms (positive, negative, total psychopathology, auditory hallucinations and cognitive deficits), obsessive compulsive symptoms of OCD, mania, craving/compulsion in substance use disorders (SUDs) and migraine (headache severity and frequency). Frequencies and odds ratios (OR) for adverse events were calculated. Methodological quality of included studies, publication bias and sensitivity assessment for each meta-analyses was conducted. Meta-analyses of "active only" studies suggested a significant effect of rTMS for all outcomes, with moderate to large effect sizes, at both end of treatment as well as at follow-up. However, except for migraine (headache severity and frequency) with large effect sizes at end of treatment only and craving in alcohol dependence where moderate effect size at follow-up only, rTMS was not found to be effective for any outcome in the series of "active vs sham" meta-analyses. Significant heterogeneity was seen. Serious adverse events were rare. Publication bias was common and the sham controlled positive results lost significance in sensitivity analysis. We conclude that rTMS is safe and shows positive results in 'only active' treatment groups for all the studied neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the sham-controlled evidence for efficacy is negative from India.

CONCLUSION

rTMS is safe and shows positive results in "only active" treatment groups for all the studied neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the sham-controlled evidence for efficacy is negative from India.

Case report: Improved behavioral and psychiatric symptoms with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the bilateral DLPFC combined with cognitive and behavioral therapy in a patient with unilateral thalamic hemorrhage

Behavioral and psychological symptoms are not uncommon after thalamic stroke, and are often intractable despite medication and behavioral interventions. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is as an adjunctive therapeutic tool for neuropsychiatric diseases, and bilateral rTMS has been recently introduced to maximize the therapeutic effect. Herein, we report the case details of a patient with unilateral left thalamic hemorrhage without cortical lesions who had treatment-resistant neuropsychiatric symptoms. We hypothesized that bilateral rTMS targeting the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFCs) would positively affect thalamocortical neural connections and result in neuropsychiatric symptom improvement. The patient received a total of 10 sessions of bilateral rTMS over 2 weeks, applied at the DLPFCs, with high frequency in the left hemisphere and low frequency in the right hemisphere. After each rTMS treatment, computer-based cognitive-behavioral therapy was administered for 30 min. Behavioral and psychological symptoms, including hallucinations, aggressiveness, aberrant motor activity, disinhibition, and abrupt emotional changes, were significantly improved as assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire. These effects persisted for up to 1 month. This case demonstrates the clinical potential of bilateral rTMS treatment in patients with intractable neurocognitive impairment after thalamic stroke.

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.

Potential Locations for Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Treating Schizophrenia: A Resting-State Functional Connectivity Analysis

Introduction: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been widely used for the purpose of improving clinical symptoms of schizophrenia. However, the ambiguous stimulation targets may limit the efficacy of NIBS for schizophrenia. Exploring effective stimulation targets may improve the clinical efficacy of NIBS in schizophrenia.

Methods: We first conducted a neurosynth-based meta-analysis of 715 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to identify schizophrenia-related brain regions as regions of interest. Then, we performed the resting-state functional connectivity analysis in 32 patients with first-episode schizophrenia to find brain surface regions correlated with the regions of interest in three pipelines. Finally, the 10–20 system coordinates corresponding to the brain surface regions were considered as potential targets for NIBS.

Results: We identified several potential targets of NIBS, including the bilateral dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, supplementary motor area, bilateral inferior parietal lobule, temporal pole, medial prefrontal cortex, precuneus, superior and middle temporal gyrus, and superior and middle occipital gyrus. Notably, the 10-20 system location of the bilateral dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex was posterior to F3 (F4), not F3 (F4).

Conclusion: Conclusively, our findings suggested that the stimulation locations corresponding to these potential targets might help clinicians optimize the application of NIBS therapy in individuals with schizophrenia.

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.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a new treatment for people with schizophrenia, especially those who experience persistent auditory hallucinations.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of TMS alone, compared with sham TMS or with 'standard management' and any other comparison interventions in reducing psychotic symptoms associated with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2006, June 2008, April 2013). This register is compiled by methodical searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, LILACS, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, and Sociofile, and is supplemented with handsearching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials recruiting at least five participants and comparing TMS with sham TMS or any other treatment for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies with 1473 participants in the review. We found significant differences in favour of temporoparietal TMS compared to sham TMS for global state measured on the CGI scale (7 RCTs, n = 224, MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.23, very low-quality evidence) and positive symptoms measured on the PANSS scale (5 RCTs, n = 127, MD -6.09, 95% CI -10.95 to -1.22, very low-quality evidence). Participants experienced significantly more headaches in the temporoparietal TMS group (10 RCTs, n = 392, RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.50, very low-quality evidence). However, no more participants left the study early from the TMS group than from the sham group (very low-quality evidence). Cognitive state was assessed using 39 different measures, and all were equivocal (very low-quality evidence).We included only two trials which compared temporoparietal TMS with standard treatment. In both trials the participants received first- and second-generation antipsychotic medication in both treatment groups, therefore TMS was used an adjunctive therapy to medication. We found no significant differences in the number of participants that showed clinical improvement in global state (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.57) or left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 140, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.46) (both very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on global state score, mental state, cognitive state and adverse effects.For prefrontal TMS compared to sham TMS, global state was measured on three different scales, all of which presented equivocal results (very low quality evidence). We could not pool data for mental state on the PANSS scale due to high heterogeneity. Cognitive state was assessed using 19 different measures, with 15/19 being equivocal (very low-quality evidence). Prefrontal TMS caused more headaches (6 RCTs, n = 164, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.26, very low-quality evidence) but there was no difference in the number of participants leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). No studies reported data for clinical improvement.We found a significant difference in favour of prefrontal theta burst stimulation TMS compared to sham TMS for mental state on the PANNS scale (3 RCTs, n = 108, MD -5.71, 95% CI -9.32 to -2.10, very low evidence). We found no difference for clinical improvement, cognitive state, number of headaches, and leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported satisfaction with care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of TMS to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. Although some evidence suggests that TMS, and in particular temporoparietal TMS, may improve certain symptoms (such as auditory hallucinations and positive symptoms of schizophrenia) compared to sham TMS, the results were not robust enough to be unequivocal across the assessment measures used. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any added benefit with TMS used as an adjunctive therapy to antipsychotic medication.The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low due to risk of bias, and this was accompanied by an imprecision in estimates due to the relatively small number of participants in the studies. Thus, consideration is required in improving the quality of trial processes, as well as the quality of reporting of ongoing and future TMS trials, so as to facilitate accurate future judgements in assessing risk of bias. Differences in TMS techniques in relation to stimulation intensity, stimulation length, brain areas stimulated and variations in the design of sham TMS all contributed to the heterogeneity of study findings and limited the interpretation and applicability of the results. In addition, the trials assessed their outcomes with a variety of scales, and usable data were limited. Therefore, to better evaluate the treatment effects of TMS in people with schizophrenia, we favour the use of standardised treatment protocols and outcome measures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for auditory hallucinations treatment in refractory schizophrenic patients

BACKGROUND

The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains a promising therapeutic tool in the treatment of schizophrenia. Symptoms such as auditory hallucinations (AH) find contradictory results in many studies. Here we present an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of rTMS in the treatment of AH in schizophrenia.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE from 1999 to 2013 for double-blinded randomized sham-controlled trials that applied slow rTMS on the left temporoparietal cortex and assessed the outcome results using Hallucination Change Scale or Auditory Hallucination Rating Scale or Scale for Auditory Hallucinations (SAH). We identified 10 studies suitable for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We found a positive sized effect in favor of rTMS [random-effects model Hedges' g = 0.011, I-squared = 58.1%]. There was some variability between study effect sizes, but the sensitivity analysis concluded that none of them had sufficient weight to singularly alter the results of our meta-analysis.

DISCUSSION

rTMS appears to be an effective treatment for AH. The left temporoparietal cortex seems to be the area in which rTMS is effective. Although meta-analysis is a powerful analytical tool, more studies must be conducted in order to obtain a more expressive sample size to perform a more accurate analytical approach.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for hallucination in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of auditory hallucination of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

DATA SOURCES

Online literature retrieval was conducted using PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1985 to May 2012. Key words were "transcranial magnetic stimulation", "TMS", "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation", and "hallucination".

STUDY SELECTION

Selected studies were randomized controlled trials assessing therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for hallucination in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Experimental intervention was low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in left temporoparietal cortex for treatment of auditory hallucination in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Control groups received sham stimulation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was total scores of Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale, Auditory Hallucination Subscale of Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Auditory Hallucination item, and Hallucination Change Scale. Secondary outcomes included response rate, global mental state, adverse effects and cognitive function.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies addressing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders were screened, with controls receiving sham stimulation. All data were completely effective, involving 398 patients. Overall mean weighted effect size for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus sham stimulation was statistically significant (MD = -0.42, 95%CI: -0.64 to -0.20, P = 0.000 2). Patients receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation responded more frequently than sham stimulation (OR = 2.94, 95%CI: 1.39 to 6.24, P = 0.005). No significant differences were found between active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and sham stimulation for positive or negative symptoms. Compared with sham stimulation, active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation had equivocal outcome in cognitive function and commonly caused headache and facial muscle twitching.

CONCLUSION

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for auditory hallucination in schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Review of the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation for auditory verbal hallucinations

With an increase of the number of studies exploring repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH), an update is provided on the efficacy of different paradigms. A literature search was performed from 1966 through April 2013. Twenty-five randomized controlled trials using the severity of AVH or psychosis as outcome measures were included. Standardized mean weighted effect sizes were computed; a qualitative review of the literature was performed to assess the effects of various rTMS paradigms. rTMS versus sham treatment for AVH yielded a mean weighted effect size of .44. No significant mean weighted effect size was found for the severity of psychosis (i.e., .21). For patients with medication-resistant AVH, the mean weighted effect size was .45. rTMS applied at the left temporoparietal area with a frequency of 1 Hz yielded a moderate mean weighted effect size of .63, indicating superiority of this paradigm. Various other paradigms failed to show superior effects. rTMS applied at the right temporoparietal area was not superior to sham treatment. rTMS, especially when applied at the left temporoparietal area with a frequency of 1 Hz, is effective for the treatment of AVH, including in patients with medication-resistant AVH. The results for other rTMS paradigms are disappointing thus far. A next step should be to explore the effects of rTMS in medication-free individuals, for example, during the initial phases of psychosis, and in patients with diagnoses other than schizophrenia who do not have comorbid psychotic symptoms.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatry

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive and relatively painless tool that has been used to study various cognitive functions as well as to understand the brain–behavior relationship in normal individuals as well as in those with various neuropsychiatric disorders. It has also been used as a therapeutic tool in various neuropsychiatric disorders because of its ability to specifically modulate distinct brain areas. Studies have shown that repeated stimulation at low frequency produces long-lasting inhibition, which is called as long-term depression, whereas repeated high-frequency stimulation can produce excitation through long-term potentiation. This paper reviews the current status of rTMS as an investigative and therapeutic modality in various neuropsychiatric disorders. It has been used to study the cortical and subcortical functions, neural plasticity and brain mapping in normal individuals and in various neuropsychiatric disorders. rTMS has been most promising in the treatment of depression, with an overall milder adverse effect profile compared with electroconvulsive therapy. In other neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, mania, epilepsy and substance abuse, it has been found to be useful, although further studies are required to establish therapeutic efficacy. It appears to be ineffective in the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. There is a paucity of studies of efficacy and safety of rTMS in pediatric and geriatric population. Although it appears safe, further research is required to optimize its efficacy and reduce the side-effects. Magnetic seizure therapy, which involves producing seizures akin to electroconvulsive therapy, appears to be of comparable efficacy in the treatment of depression with less cognitive adverse effects.

The emerging use of brain stimulation treatments for psychiatric disorders

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the current state of development and application of a wide range of brain stimulation approaches in the treatment of psychiatric disorders.

METHOD

The approaches reviewed include forms of minimally invasive magnetic and electrical stimulation, seizure induction, implanted devices and several highly novel approaches in early development.

RESULTS

An extensive range of brain stimulation approaches are now being widely used in the treatment of patients with psychiatric disorders, or actively investigated for this use. Both vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have been introduced into clinical practice in some countries. A small body of research suggests that VNS has some potentially long-lasting antidepressant effects in a minority of patients treated. rTMS has now been extensively investigated for over 15 years, with a large body of research now supporting its antidepressant effects. Further rTMS research needs to focus on defining the most appropriate stimulation methods and exploring its longer term use in maintenance protocols. Very early data suggest that magnetic seizure therapy (MST) has promise in the treatment of patients referred for electroconvulsive therapy: MST appears to have fewer side effects and may have similar efficacy. A number of other approaches including surgical and alternative forms of electrical stimulation appear to alter brain activity in a promising manner, but are in need of evaluation in more substantive patient samples.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears likely that the range of psychiatric treatments available for patients will grow over the coming years to progressively include a number of novel brain stimulation techniques.

Safety and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with pathologic positive sensory phenomena: a review of literature

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is emerging as a valuable therapeutic and diagnostic tool. rTMS appears particularly promising for disorders characterized by positive sensory phenomena that are attributable to alterations in sensory cortical excitability. Among these are tinnitus, auditory and visual hallucinations, and pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVE

Despite studies addressing rTMS efficacy in suppression of positive sensory symptoms, the safety of stimulation of potentially hyperexcitable cortex has not been fully addressed. We performed a systematic literature review and metaanalysis to describe the rTMS safety profile in these disorders.

METHODS

Using the PubMed database, we performed an English-language literature search from January 1985 to April 2011 to review all pertinent publications. Per study, we noted and listed pertinent details. From these data we also calculated a crude per-subject risk for each adverse event.

RESULTS

One hundred six publications (n = 1815) were identified with patients undergoing rTMS for pathologic positive sensory phenomena. Adverse events associated with rTMS were generally mild and occurred in 16.7% of subjects. Seizure was the most serious adverse event, and occurred in three patients with a 0.16% crude per-subject risk. The second most severe adverse event involved aggravation of sensory phenomena, occurring in 1.54%.

CONCLUSIONS

The published data suggest rTMS for the treatment or diagnosis of pathologic positive sensory phenomena appears to be a relatively safe and well-tolerated procedure. However, published data are lacking in systematic reporting of adverse events, and safety risks of rTMS in these patient populations will have to be addressed in future prospective trials.

Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications

Neuroplasticity can be defined as the ability of the nervous system to respond to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, function and connections. Major advances in the understanding of neuroplasticity have to date yielded few established interventions. To advance the translation of neuroplasticity research towards clinical applications, the National Institutes of Health Blueprint for Neuroscience Research sponsored a workshop in 2009. Basic and clinical researchers in disciplines from central nervous system injury/stroke, mental/addictive disorders, paediatric/developmental disorders and neurodegeneration/ageing identified cardinal examples of neuroplasticity, underlying mechanisms, therapeutic implications and common denominators. Promising therapies that may enhance training-induced cognitive and motor learning, such as brain stimulation and neuropharmacological interventions, were identified, along with questions of how best to use this body of information to reduce human disability. Improved understanding of adaptive mechanisms at every level, from molecules to synapses, to networks, to behaviour, can be gained from iterative collaborations between basic and clinical researchers. Lessons can be gleaned from studying fields related to plasticity, such as development, critical periods, learning and response to disease. Improved means of assessing neuroplasticity in humans, including biomarkers for predicting and monitoring treatment response, are needed. Neuroplasticity occurs with many variations, in many forms, and in many contexts. However, common themes in plasticity that emerge across diverse central nervous system conditions include experience dependence, time sensitivity and the importance of motivation and attention. Integration of information across disciplines should enhance opportunities for the translation of neuroplasticity and circuit retraining research into effective clinical therapies.

Why do some promising brain-stimulation devices fail the next steps of clinical development?

Interest in techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been growing exponentially in the last decade. Recent studies have shown that some of these techniques induce significant neurophysiological and clinical effects. Although recent results are promising, there are several techniques that have been abandoned despite positive initial results. In this study, we performed a systematic review to identify NIBS methods with promising preliminary clinical results that were not fully developed and adopted into clinical practice, and discuss its clinical, research and device characteristics. We identified five devices (transmeatal cochlear laser stimulation, transcranial micropolarization, transcranial electrostimulation, cranial electric stimulation and stimulation with weak electromagnetic fields) and compared them with two established NIBS devices (transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) and with well-known drugs used in neuropsychiatry (pramipexole and escitalopram) in order to understand the reasons why they failed to reach clinical practice and further steps of research development. Finally, we also discuss novel NIBS devices that have recently showed promising results: brain ultrasound and transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. Our results show that some of the reasons for the failure of NIBS devices with promising clinical findings are the difficulty to disseminate results, lack of controlled studies, duration of research development, mixed results and lack of standardization.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for refractory symptoms in schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Schizophrenia is an illness associated with a substantial degree of treatment resistance and suboptimal therapeutic response. In recent years, novel brain stimulation technologies have been identified as potential treatments for schizophrenia and related disorders. Several published studies have assessed the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with schizophrenia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most published studies have focused on the use of low-frequency rTMS to treat refractory auditory hallucinations. These studies support the efficacy of stimulation over the temporoparietal cortex. Several other studies have assessed high-frequency stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in the treatment of negative symptoms. Novel protocols to treat auditory hallucinations have been piloted and case reports are emerging on the use of maintenance rTMS to treat auditory hallucinations.

SUMMARY

Overall, rTMS studies have demonstrated some promise in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, more research is required to delineate the role of this technique in clinical practice and to explore novel stimulation techniques that may ultimately lead to improved therapeutic efficacy.