A Randomized Sham-controlled Trial of 1-Hz and 10-Hz Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) of the Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Civilian Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Un essai randomisé contrôlé simulé de stimulation magnétique transcrânienne repetitive (SMTr) de 1 Hz et 10 Hz du cortex préfrontal dorsolatéral droit dans le trouble de stress post-traumatique chez des civils

Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and its comparison with high-frequency stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) showed potentially beneficial effects for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Low-frequency (LF) rTMS decreases neuronal excitability and may have better safety compared to high-frequency (HF) rTMS. However, there lacks meta-analysis specifically focusing on LF rTMS.

Objectives

To specifically explore the efficacy and safety of LF rTMS for treating PTSD.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to October 17, 2023. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and open trials of LF rTMS on PTSD were included, and we additionally included RCTs comparing HF rTMS and sham treatment on PTSD. First, we qualitatively summarized parameters of LF rTMS treatment; then, we extracted data from the LF rTMS treatment subgroups of these studies to examine its effect size and potential influencing factors; third, we compared the effect sizes among LF rTMS, HF rTMS and sham treatment through network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Results

In all, 15 studies with a sample size of 542 participants were included. The overall effect size for LF rTMS as a treatment for PTSD was found as Hedges' g = 1.02 (95% CI (0.56, 1.47)). Meta-regression analysis did not reveal any influencing factors. Network meta-analysis showed that compared to sham treatment, only HF rTMS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) demonstrated a significant advantage in ameliorating PTSD symptoms, while LF rTMS on the right DLPFC showed a trend toward advantage, but the difference was not significant.

Conclusion

The current literature shows LF rTMS has effect in treating PTSD caused by various traumatic events. However, present limited number of RCT studies only showed LF rTMS to have a trend of advantage compared to sham treatment in treating PTSD caused by external traumatic events. In the future, more RCTs are needed to be made to confirm the efficacy of LF rTMS. Additionally, studies are required to elucidate the underlying mechanism in order to further improve its efficacy in different traumatic populations.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023470169.

A potential target for noninvasive neuromodulation of PTSD symptoms derived from focal brain lesions in veterans

Neuromodulation trials for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have yielded mixed results, and the optimal neuroanatomical target remains unclear. Here we analyzed three datasets to study brain circuitry causally linked to PTSD in military veterans. In veterans with penetrating traumatic brain injury, lesion locations that reduced probability of PTSD were preferentially connected to a circuit including the medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala and anterolateral temporal lobe. In veterans without lesions, PTSD was specifically associated with increased connectivity within this circuit. Reduced functional connectivity within this circuit after transcranial magnetic stimulation correlated with symptom reduction, even though the circuit was not directly targeted. This lesion-based 'PTSD circuit' may serve as a target for clinical trials of neuromodulation in veterans with PTSD.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder: A comprehensive systematic review and analysis of therapeutic benefits, cortical targets, and psychopathophysiological mechanisms

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a safe non-invasive treatment technique. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) applying TMS in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to analyse its therapeutic benefits and explore the relationship between cortical target and psychopathophysiology. We included 47 randomised controlled trials (35 for OCD) and found a 22.7 % symptom improvement for OCD and 29.4 % for PTSD. Eight cortical targets were investigated for OCD and four for PTSD, yielding similar results. Bilateral dlPFC-TMS exhibited the greatest symptom change (32.3 % for OCD, N = 4 studies; 35.7 % for PTSD, N = 1 studies), followed by right dlPFC-TMS (24.4 % for OCD, N = 8; 26.7 % for PTSD, N = 10), and left dlPFC-TMS (22.9 % for OCD, N = 6; 23.1 % for PTSD, N = 1). mPFC-TMS showed promising results, although evidence is limited (N = 2 studies each for OCD and PTSD) and findings for PTSD were conflicting. Despite clinical improvement, reviewed reports lacked a consistent and solid rationale for cortical target selection, revealing a gap in TMS research that complicates the interpretation of findings and hinders TMS development and optimisation. Future research should adopt a hypothesis-driven approach rather than relying solely on correlations from imaging studies, integrating neurobiological processes with affective, behavioural, and cognitive states, thereby doing justice to the complexity of human experience and mental illness.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults

BACKGROUND

The estimated lifetime prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults worldwide has been estimated at 3.9%. PTSD appears to contribute to alterations in neuronal network connectivity patterns. Current pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD are associated with inadequate symptom improvement and high dropout rates. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive therapy involving induction of electrical currents in cortical brain tissue, may be an important treatment option for PTSD to improve remission rates and for people who cannot tolerate existing treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two clinical trials registers. We checked reference lists of relevant articles. The most recent search was January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of rTMS versus sham rTMS for PTSD in adults from any treatment setting, including veterans. Eligible trials employed at least five rTMS treatment sessions with both active and sham conditions. We included trials with combination interventions, where a pharmacological agent or psychotherapy was combined with rTMS for both intervention and control groups. We included studies meeting the above criteria regardless of whether they reported any of our outcomes of interest.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane standards. Primary outcomes were PTSD severity immediately after treatment and serious adverse events during active treatment. Secondary outcomes were PTSD remission, PTSD response, PTSD severity at two follow-up time points after treatment, dropouts, and depression and anxiety severity immediately after treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs in the review (12 published; 1 unpublished dissertation), with 577 participants. Eight studies included stand-alone rTMS treatment, four combined rTMS with an evidence-based psychotherapeutic treatment, and one investigated rTMS as an adjunctive to treatment-as-usual. Five studies were conducted in the USA, and some predominantly included white, male veterans. Active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.54 to 0.27; 3 studies, 99 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence by one level for imprecision (sample size insufficient to detect a difference of medium effect size). We deemed one study as having a low risk of bias and the remaining two as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. A sensitivity analysis of change-from-baseline scores enabled inclusion of a greater number of studies (6 studies, 252 participants). This analysis yielded a similar outcome to our main analysis but also indicated significant heterogeneity in efficacy across studies, including two studies with a high risk of bias. Reported rates of serious adverse events were low, with seven reported (active rTMS: 6; sham rTMS: 1). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of active rTMS on serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 5.26, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.81; 5 studies, 251 participants; very low-certainty evidence [Active rTMS: 23/1000, sham rTMS: 4/1000]). We downgraded the evidence by one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision. We rated four of five studies as having a high risk of bias, and the fifth as 'some concerns' for bias. We were unable to assess PTSD remission immediately after treatment as none of the included studies reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our review suggests that active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment compared to sham stimulation. However, significant heterogeneity in efficacy was detected when we included a larger number of studies in sensitivity analysis. We observed considerable variety in participant and protocol characteristics across studies included in this review. For example, studies tended to be weighted towards inclusion of either male veterans or female civilians. Studies varied greatly in terms of the proportion of the sample with comorbid depression. Study protocols differed in treatment design and stimulation parameters (e.g. session number/duration, treatment course length, stimulation intensity/frequency, location of stimulation). These differences may affect efficacy, particularly when considering interactions with participant factors. Reported rates of serious adverse events were very low (< 1%) across active and sham conditions. It is uncertain whether rTMS increases the risk of serious adverse event occurrence, as our certainty of evidence was very low. Studies frequently lacked clear definitions for serious adverse events, as well as detail on tracking/assessment of data and information on the safety population. Increased reporting on these elements would likely aid the advancement of both research and clinical recommendations of rTMS for PTSD. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to meta-analyze PTSD remission, PTSD treatment response, and PTSD severity at different periods post-treatment. Further research into these outcomes could inform the clinical use of rTMS. Additionally, the relatively large contribution of data from trials that focused on white male veterans may limit the generalizability of our conclusions. This could be addressed by prioritizing recruitment of more diverse participant samples.

Advances in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric disorder that develops and persists after an individual experiences a major traumatic or life-threatening event. While pharmacological treatment and psychological interventions can alleviate some symptoms, pharmacotherapy is time-consuming with low patient compliance, and psychological interventions are costly. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective technique for treating PTSD, with advantages such as high compliance, low cost, and simplicity of implementation. It can even simultaneously improve depressive symptoms in some patients. Current research indicates that high-frequency rTMS shows better therapeutic effects compared to low-frequency rTMS, with no significant difference in the likelihood of adverse reactions between the two. Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS) exhibits similar efficacy to high-frequency rTMS, with shorter duration and significant improvement in depressive symptoms. However, it carries a slightly higher risk of adverse reactions compared to traditional high-frequency rTMS. Combining rTMS with psychological therapy appears to be more effective in improving PTSD symptoms, with early onset of effects and longer duration, albeit at higher cost and requiring individualized patient control. The most common adverse effect of treatment is headache, which can be improved by stopping treatment or using analgesics. Despite these encouraging data, several aspects remain unknown. Given the highly heterogeneous nature of PTSD, defining unique treatment methods for this patient population is quite challenging. There are also considerable differences between trials regarding stimulation parameters, therapeutic effects, and the role of combined psychological therapy, which future research needs to address.

Efficacy and acceptability of noninvasive brain stimulation for treating posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite its high lifetime prevalence rate and the elevated disability caused by posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), treatments exhibit modest efficacy. In consideration of the abnormal connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and amygdala in PTSD, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modalities for PTSD management have been undertaken. However, previous RCTs have reported inconsistent results. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various NIBS protocols in PTSD management.

METHODS

We systematically searched ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant RCTs. The targeted RCTs was those comparing the efficacy of NIBS interventions, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcutaneous cervical vagal nerve stimulation, in patients with PTSD. The NMA was conducted using a frequentist model. The primary outcomes were changes in the overall severity of PTSD and acceptability (to be specific, rates of dropouts for any reason).

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs that enrolled 686 participants. The NMA demonstrated that among the investigated NIBS types, high-frequency rTMS over bilateral DLPFCs was associated with the greatest reduction in overall PTSD severity. Further, in comparison with the sham controls, excitatory stimulation over the right DLPFC with/without excitatory stimulation over left DLPFC were associated with significant reductions in PTSD-related symptoms, including depression and anxiety symptoms, and overall PTSD severity.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA demonstrated that excitatory stimulation over the right DLPFC with or without excitatory stimulation over left DLPFC were associated with significant reductions in PTSD-related symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023391562.

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.

Critically Assessing the Unanswered Questions of How, Where, and When to Induce Plasticity in the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Network With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Extinction of traumatic memory, a primary treatment approach (termed exposure therapy) in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), occurs through relearning and may be subserved at the molecular level by long-term potentiation of relevant circuits. In parallel, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is thought to work through long-term potentiation-like mechanisms and may provide a novel, safe, and effective treatment for PTSD. In a recent failed randomized controlled trial we emphasized the necessity of correctly identifying cortical targets, the directionality of TMS protocols, and the role of memory activation. Here, we provide a systematic review of TMS for PTSD to further identify how, where, and when TMS treatment should be delivered to alleviate PTSD symptoms. We conducted a systematic review of the literature by searching for repetitive TMS clinical trials involving patients with PTSD and outcomes. We searched MEDLINE through October 25, 2023, for "TMS and PTSD" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation and posttraumatic stress disorder." Thirty-one publications met our inclusion criteria (k = 17 randomized controlled trials, k = 14 open label). Randomized controlled trial protocols were varied in terms of TMS protocols, cortical TMS targets, and memory activation protocols. There was no clear superiority of low-frequency (k = 5) versus high-frequency (k = 6) protocols or by stimulation location. Memory provocation or exposure protocols (k = 7) appear to enhance response. Overall, TMS appears to be effective in treating PTSD symptoms across a variety of TMS frequencies, hemispheric target differences, and exposure protocols. Disparate protocols may be conceptually harmonized when viewed as potentiating proposed anxiolytic networks or suppressing anxiogenic networks.

A potential neuromodulation target for PTSD in Veterans derived from focal brain lesions

Neuromodulation trials for PTSD have yielded mixed results, and the optimal neuroanatomical target remains unclear. We analyzed three datasets to study brain circuitry causally linked to PTSD in military Veterans. After penetrating traumatic brain injury (n=193), lesions that reduced probability of PTSD were preferentially connected to a circuit including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), amygdala, and anterolateral temporal lobe (cross-validation p=0.01). In Veterans without lesions (n=180), PTSD was specifically associated with connectivity within this circuit (p<0.01). Connectivity change within this circuit correlated with PTSD improvement after transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) (n=20) (p<0.01), even though the circuit was not directly targeted. Finally, we directly targeted this circuit with fMRI-guided accelerated TMS, leading to rapid resolution of symptoms in a patient with severe lifelong PTSD. All results were independent of depression severity. This lesion-based PTSD circuit may serve as a neuromodulation target for Veterans with PTSD.

Explore the durability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treating post-traumatic stress disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective was to synthesize results from studies that assessed symptom relief after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and investigate the long-term effectiveness of rTMS for treating PTSD. We searched multiple databases for relevant randomized controlled trials of rTMS for PTSD treatment up to 1 January 2023. Two researchers evaluated the studies and focused on the CAPS and PCL as outcome indicators. We used STATA17 SE software for the data analysis. Eight articles involving 309 PTSD patients were analysed in a meta-analysis, which found that rTMS had a significant and large effect on reducing core post-traumatic symptoms [Hedges'g = 1.75, 95% CI (1.18, 2.33)]. Both low and high-frequency rTMS also significantly reduced symptoms, with the latter having a greater effect. rTMS was shown to have a long-term effect on PTSD, with all three subgroup analyses demonstrating significant results. Interestingly, no significant difference in symptom relief was found between the follow-up and completion of treatments [Hedges'g = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.30, 0.33)], suggesting that the treatment effect of rTMS is stable. The meta-analysis provides strong evidence that rTMS is effective in reducing the severity and symptoms of PTSD in patients, and follow-up studies confirm its long-term stability.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder: Lights and shadows

We have read with interest the publication that describes the available data related to the use of neuromodulation strategies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite treatment advances, however, a substantial proportion of PTSD patients receiving psychological and/or pharmacological treatment do not reach an adequate clinical response. In their paper, the authors draw attention to the current understanding of the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a potential treatment for PTSD. Most of the previous studies indeed applied both inhibitory (1 Hz) and excitatory (> 1 Hz, up to 20 Hz) rTMS to the right and/or left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Despite larger therapeutic effects observed when high-frequency stimulation was applied, the question of which side and frequency of stimulation is the most successful is still debated. The authors also reported on the after-effect of rTMS related to neuroplasticity and identified the intermittent theta burst stimulation as a technique of particular interest because of it showed the most effective improvement on PTSD symptoms. However, although numerous studies have highlighted the possible beneficial use of rTMS protocols for PTSD, the exact mechanism of action remains unclear. In their conclusions, the authors stated that rTMS has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PTSD symptoms. Nevertheless, we believe that further research with homogeneous samples, standardized protocols, and objective outcome measures is needed to identify specific therapeutic targets and to better define significant changes when active and sham stimulation procedures are compared.

Combining Trauma Script Exposure With rTMS to Reduce Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative therapeutic interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are required. We opted to facilitate fear extinction by combining trauma script exposure with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to reduce symptoms of PTSD.

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of 10 Hz rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex simultaneously with exposure to personal traumatic narrative were studied in patients with PTSD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This trial was a single-center randomized controlled trial (NCT02584894). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eight daily sessions of 110% of motor threshold high frequency (HF) 10 Hz rTMS (110% HF rTMS) or 70% low frequency (LF) 1 Hz rTMS (70% LF rTMS) with trauma script exposure in both groups. Severity of PTSD, depression, and anxiety were assessed before and after study treatment (one month, three months) by an assessor masked to the trial group assignment. The primary outcome was the severity of PTSD assessed by the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). We used mixed linear regression models for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients (65.8% females) were randomly assigned to 110% HF rTMS (n = 18, 31.3 ± 10.0 years, 13 females) or 70% LF rTMS (n = 20, 33.5 ± 11.1 years, 12 females). From baseline to three months, mean CAPS scores decreased by 51% in the 110% HF rTMS group (from 83.7 ± 14.4 to 41.8 ± 31.9) and by 36.9% in the 70% LF rTMS group (from 81.8 ± 15.6 to 51.6 ± 23.7), but with no significant difference in improvement (time by treatment interaction -3.61 [95% confidence interval (CI), -9.70 to 2.47]; p = 0.24; effect size 0.53). One serious adverse event occurred during the study (psychogenic nonepileptic seizure).

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of difference in clinical improvement or remission rates between the 110% HF and 70% LF stimulation. These findings may reflect the importance of exposure procedure and that larger number of participants is needed.

The Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulations for the Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Scoping Review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive procedure in which brain neural activity is stimulated by the direct application of a magnetic field to the scalp. Despite its wide and continuous usage for the management of psychiatric disorders, the use of rTMS for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is not well established and evaluated by researchers. This scoping review seeks to explore the relevant literature available regarding the use of rTMS as a mode of treatment for PTSD, to map evidence in support of the use of rTMS for PTSD, and recommendations on future clinical and research work. Five databases were searched (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psych INFO, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) to identify empirical studies and randomized controlled trials aimed at the treatment of PTSD with rTMS. A total of 10 studies were eligible for this review. The search results are up to date as of the date of the electronic data search of 20 December 2020. The frequencies applied in the studies ranged from low (1 Hz) to high (10 Hz) at different thresholds. Nine reported significant positive outcomes and PTSD symptoms improvement. rTMS was reported as well tolerated with no significant side effects. The application of rTMS for PTSD looks promising despite the diversity in terms of its outcomes and its clinical significance. Studies with well-defined stimulation parameters need to be conducted in the future.

Prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression in US military veterans - A naturalistic cohort study in the veterans health administration

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an evidence-based treatment for pharmacoresistant major depressive disorder (MDD), however, the evidence in veterans has been mixed. To this end, VA implemented a nationwide TMS program that included evaluating clinical outcomes within a naturalistic design. TMS was hypothesized to be safe and provide clinically meaningful reductions in MDD and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were MDD diagnosis and standard clinical TMS eligibility. Of the 770 patients enrolled between October 2017 and March 2020, 68.4% (n = 521) met threshold-level PTSD symptom criteria. Treatments generally used standard parameters (e.g., left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 120% motor threshold, 10 Hz, 3000 pulses/treatment). Adequate dose was operationally defined as 30 sessions. MDD and PTSD symptoms were measured using the 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 770 who received at least one session, TMS was associated with clinically meaningful (Cohen's d>1.0) and statistically significant (all p<.001) reductions in MDD and PTSD. Of the 340 veterans who received an adequate dose, MDD response and remission rates were 41.4% and 20%, respectively. In veterans with comorbid PTSD, 65.3% demonstrated clinically meaningful reduction and 46.1% no longer met PTSD threshold criteria after TMS. Side effects were consistent with the known safety profile of TMS.

LIMITATIONS

Include those inherent to retrospective observational cohort study in Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

These multisite, large-scale data supports the effectiveness and safety of TMS for veterans with MDD and PTSD using standard clinical approaches.

Neuromodulation Treatments of Pathological Anxiety in Anxiety Disorders, Stressor-Related Disorders, and Major Depressive Disorder: A Dimensional Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological anxiety is responsible for major functional impairments and resistance to conventional treatments in anxiety disorders (ADs), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). Focal neuromodulation therapies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are being developed to treat those disorders.

METHODS

We performed a dimensional systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the evidence of the efficacy of TMS, tDCS and DBS in reducing anxiety symptoms across ADs, PTSD and MDD. Reports were identified through systematic searches in PubMed/Medline, Scopus and Cochrane library (inception to November 2020), followed by review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Controlled clinical trials examining the effectiveness of brain stimulation techniques on generic anxiety symptoms in patients with ADs, PTSD or MDD were selected.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (RCTs) met inclusion criteria, which included 589 participants. Overall, focal brain activity modulation interventions were associated with greater reduction of anxiety levels than controls [SMD: -0.56 (95% CI, -0.93 to-0.20, I ² = 77%]. Subgroup analyses revealed positive effects for TMS across disorders, and of focal neuromodulation in generalized anxiety disorder and PTSD. Rates of clinical responses and remission were higher in the active conditions. However, the risk of bias was high in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence for the efficacy of neuromodulation in treating pathological anxiety.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=233084, identifier: PROSPERO CRD42021233084. It was submitted on January 29th, 2021, and registered on March 1st, 2021. No amendment was made to the recorded protocol. A change was applied for the subgroup analyses based on target brain regions, we added the putative nature (excitatory/inhibitory) of brain activity modulation.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder. While current treatment options are effective for some, many individuals fail to respond to first-line psychotherapies and pharmacotherapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has emerged over the past several decades as a noninvasive neuromodulatory intervention for psychiatric disorders including depression, with mounting evidence for its safety, tolerability, and efficacy in treating PTSD. While several meta-analyses of TMS for PTSD have been published to date showing large effect sizes on PTSD overall, there is marked variability between studies, making it difficult to draw simple conclusions about how best to treat patients. The following review summarizes over 20 years of the existing literature on TMS as a PTSD treatment, and includes nine randomized controlled trials and many other prospective studies of TMS monotherapy, as well as five randomized controlled trials investigating TMS combined with psychotherapy. While the majority of studies utilize repetitive TMS targeted to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) at low frequency (1 Hz) or high frequency (10 or 20 Hz), others have used alternative frequencies, targeted other regions (most commonly the left DLPFC), or trialed different stimulation protocols utilizing newer TMS modalities such as synchronized TMS and theta-burst TMS (TBS). Although it is encouraging that positive outcomes have been shown, there is a paucity of studies directly comparing available approaches. Biomarkers, such as functional imaging and electroencephalography, were seldomly incorporated yet remain crucial for advancing our knowledge of how to predict and monitor treatment response and for understanding mechanism of action of TMS in this population. Effects on PTSD are often sustained for up to 2-3 months, but more long-term studies are needed in order to understand and predict duration of response. In short, while TMS appears safe and effective for PTSD, important steps are needed to operationalize optimal approaches for patients suffering from this disorder.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: La Stimulation Magnétique Transcrânienne Répétitive Pour le Traitement du Trouble de Stress Post-Traumatique : Une Revue Systématique et une Méta-Analyse en Réseau

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising treatment modality for Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Several targets and stimulation parameters have been investigated, and while previous meta-analyses have suggested that rTMS is efficacious, these have pooled different stimulation parameters and targets, and the relative efficacy of each is unknown.

METHODS

We therefore performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO and retaining RCTs with at least 5 individuals per arm and clinician-rated PTSD symptoms (PROSPERO CRD42019134984). We adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and 2 independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility and extracted the primary outcome of clinician-rated PTSD symptoms. Dropouts were extracted as a proxy for acceptability. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

We synthesize data from 10 RCTs with a total of 421 participants. Two rTMS interventions targeting the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) improved PTSD symptoms relative to sham: low-frequency stimulation (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.18) and high-frequency stimulation (SMD = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.31). Medial PFC dTMS, right DLPFC intermittent theta-burst stimulation, and left DLPFC high-frequency stimulation did not separate from sham. Dropouts as a proxy for acceptability revealed no differences between any of the active conditions or sham nor did any of the active conditions differ from each other.

CONCLUSION

The current literature does not support efficacy differences between interventions; however, protocols stimulating the right DLPFC appear superior to sham. It is unclear whether this reflects heterogeneity in pathology requiring a personalized medicine approach or nonspecific mechanisms of rTMS.

Advances in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has gained interest over the past two decades. However, it has yet to be recommended in major treatment guidelines. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to examine the efficacy of rTMS for PTSD. Thirteen studies with 549 participants were included in this review. We compared the effects of (1) rTMS versus sham, and (2) high-frequency (HF) versus low-frequency (LF) rTMS, on posttreatment PTSD scores and other secondary outcomes. We calculated the standardized mean differences (SMD) to determine the direction of effects, and unstandardized mean differences to estimate the magnitude of efficacy. At post-treatment, rTMS was superior to sham comparison in reducing PTSD (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI: -2.10 to -0.15) and depression severity (SMD = -0.83, 95% CI: -1.30 to -0.36). The quality of evidence, however, was rated very low due to small samples sizes, treatment heterogeneity, inconsistent results, and an imprecise pooled effect. HF rTMS was associated with slightly improved, albeit imprecise, outcomes compared to LF rTMS on PTSD (SMD = -0.19, 95% CI: -1.39 to 1.00) and depression (SMD = -1.09, 95% CI: -1.65 to -0.52) severity. Further research is required to advance the evidence on this treatment.