Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines

This article is based on a consensus conference, promoted and supported by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN), which took place in Siena (Italy) in October 2018. The meeting intended to update the ten-year-old safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings (Rossi et al., 2009). Therefore, only emerging and new issues are covered in detail, leaving still valid the 2009 recommendations regarding the description of conventional or patterned TMS protocols, the screening of subjects/patients, the need of neurophysiological monitoring for new protocols, the utilization of reference thresholds of stimulation, the managing of seizures and the list of minor side effects. New issues discussed in detail from the meeting up to April 2020 are safety issues of recently developed stimulation devices and pulse configurations; duties and responsibility of device makers; novel scenarios of TMS applications such as in the neuroimaging context or imaging-guided and robot-guided TMS; TMS interleaved with transcranial electrical stimulation; safety during paired associative stimulation interventions; and risks of using TMS to induce therapeutic seizures (magnetic seizure therapy). An update on the possible induction of seizures, theoretically the most serious risk of TMS, is provided. It has become apparent that such a risk is low, even in patients taking drugs acting on the central nervous system, at least with the use of traditional stimulation parameters and focal coils for which large data sets are available. Finally, new operational guidelines are provided for safety in planning future trials based on traditional and patterned TMS protocols, as well as a summary of the minimal training requirements for operators, and a note on ethics of neuroenhancement.

Effects of magnetic stimulation on urodynamic stress incontinence refractory to pelvic floor muscle training in a randomized sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of magnetic stimulation on urodynamic stress incontinence refractory to pelvic floor muscle training in a randomized sham-controlled study.

METHODS

Female patients with urodynamic stress incontinence who had not been cured by pelvic floor muscle training were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2 : 1 to either active treatment or sham treatment for 10 weeks. The randomization was made using magnetic cards for individuals indicating active or sham stimulation. The primary endpoint was changes in the number of incontinence episodes/week, with secondary endpoints of the degree of incontinence (in g/day; determined using the pad test), the total score on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-SF), the ICIQ quality of life (QOL) score, and the abdominal leak point pressure (ALPP) on urodynamic study.

RESULTS

Although 39 patients were enrolled in the study, 9 dropped out, leaving a total patients for analysis (18 in the active treatment group, 12 in the sham treatment group). The number of incontinence episodes/week, the degree of incontinence, total ICIQ-SF score, ICIQ-QOL score, and ALPP were significantly improved after active treatment compared with baseline (all P < .05), but did not change significantly after sham treatment. There was a significant intergroup difference with regard to changes from baseline in the ICIQ-SF and ALPP in favor of the active treatment group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in any other parameters between the 2 groups. Treatment-related adverse events were not found in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Magnetic stimulation was effective in treating urodynamic stress incontinence.