Magnetic seizure therapy is efficacious and well tolerated for treatment-resistant bipolar depression: an open-label clinical trial

Magnetic Seizure Therapy vs Modified Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Bipolar Mania: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Bipolar mania is a common disabling illness. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for patients with severe mania, though it is limited by the risk of cognitive adverse effects. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) as an alternative treatment to ECT for bipolar mania has not yet been reported.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and cognitive adverse effects of MST and ECT in bipolar mania.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Shanghai Mental Health Center from July 1, 2017, through April 26, 2021. Forty-eight patients with bipolar mania were recruited and randomly allocated to receive MST or ECT. The data analysis was performed from June 5, 2021, through August 30, 2023.

Interventions

Patients completed 2 or 3 sessions of MST or ECT per week for a total of 8 to 10 sessions. The MST was delivered at 100% device output with a frequency of 75 Hz over the vertex.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were reduction of total Young Manic Rating Scale (YMRS) score and response rate (more than 50% reduction of the total YMRS score compared with baseline). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and repeated-measures analyses of variance were conducted for the primary outcomes.

Results

Twenty patients in the ECT group (mean [SD] age, 31.6 [8.6] years; 12 male [60.0%]) and 22 patients in the MST group (mean [SD] age, 34.8 [9.8] years; 15 male [68.2%]) were included in the ITT analysis. The response rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 85.4%-100%) in the ECT group and 86.4% (95% CI, 72.1%-100%) in the MST group. The YMRS reduction rate (z = -0.82; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.10; P = .41) and response rate (χ2 = 0.18; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.31; P = .67) were not significantly different between the groups. The time-by-group interaction was significant for the language domain (F1,24 = 7.17; P = .01), which was well preserved in patients receiving MST but worsened in patients receiving ECT. No serious adverse effects were reported in either group.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that MST is associated with a high response rate and fewer cognitive impairments in bipolar mania and that it might be an alternative therapy for the treatment of bipolar mania.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03160664.

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.

Treatment-resistant bipolar depression: concepts and challenges for novel interventions

Treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD) has been reported in about one-quarter of patients with bipolar disorders, and few interventions have shown clear and established effectiveness. We conducted a narrative review of the published medical literature to identify papers discussing treatment-resistant depression concepts and novel interventions for bipolar depression that focus on TRBD. We searched for potentially relevant English-language articles published in the last decade. Selected articles (based on the title and abstract) were retrieved for a more detailed evaluation. A number of promising new interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, are being investigated for TRBD treatment, including ketamine, lurasidone, D-cycloserine, pioglitazone, N-acetylcysteine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, magnetic seizure therapy, intermittent theta-burst stimulation, deep transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation therapy, and deep brain stimulation. Although there is no consensus about the concept of TRBD, better clarification of the neurobiology associated with treatment non-response could help identify novel strategies. More research is warranted, mainly focusing on personalizing current treatments to optimize response and remission rates.

A pilot study of magnetic seizure therapy for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in the potential of neuromodulation options in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Magnetic seizure therapy (MST), is a new treatment intervention in which generalized seizures are induced with transcranial magnetic stimulation. We conducted a pilot study to assess the efficacy and cognitive effects of MST in patients with treatment-resistant OCD.

METHODS

In an open-label pilot study, participants with treatment-resistant OCD and a baseline Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores of ≥16 were treated with up to 24 acute treatments. The primary clinical outcomes were clinical response (Y-BOCS score reduction ≥30%) and remission (final Y-BOCS score ≤8). A neurocognitive battery, the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptoms-Self Report (QIDS-SR), the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI), and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) were also completed as secondary measures.

RESULTS

Ten participants with OCD who had not responded to medications or psychotherapy enrolled in the study and seven completed an adequate trial (defined as ≥8 treatments). MST was associated with minimal cognitive effects except for some decrease in autobiographical memory and no serious adverse effects. Only one participant met the predefined criteria for response, and none for remission. The baseline and endpoint Y-BOCS scores were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Overall, MST was not beneficial in a small group of patients with treatment-resistant OCD. At this time, other studies of MST for OCD are not warranted until different coil placements targeting other brain circuits can be proposed.

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.