-
Neuropsychopharmacology : Official... Mar 2024While pharmacological, behavioral and psychosocial treatments are available for substance use disorders (SUDs), they are not always effective or well-tolerated.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
While pharmacological, behavioral and psychosocial treatments are available for substance use disorders (SUDs), they are not always effective or well-tolerated. Neuromodulation (NM) methods, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) may address SUDs by targeting addiction neurocircuitry. We evaluated the efficacy of NM to improve behavioral outcomes in SUDs. A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and PubMed databases and a list of search terms for four key concepts (SUD, rTMS, tDCS, DBS) was applied. Ninety-four studies were identified that examined the effects of rTMS, tDCS, and DBS on substance use outcomes (e.g., craving, consumption, and relapse) amongst individuals with SUDs including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, and opioids. Meta-analyses were performed for alcohol and tobacco studies using rTMS and tDCS. We found that rTMS reduced substance use and craving, as indicated by medium to large effect sizes (Hedge's g > 0.5). Results were most encouraging when multiple stimulation sessions were applied, and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was targeted. tDCS also produced medium effect sizes for drug use and craving, though they were highly variable and less robust than rTMS; right anodal DLPFC stimulation appeared to be most efficacious. DBS studies were typically small, uncontrolled studies, but showed promise in reducing misuse of multiple substances. NM may be promising for the treatment of SUDs. Future studies should determine underlying neural mechanisms of NM, and further evaluate extended treatment durations, accelerated administration protocols and long-term outcomes with biochemical verification of substance use.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Substance-Related Disorders; Behavior, Addictive; Craving; Prefrontal Cortex
PubMed: 38086901
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-023-01776-0 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2023Although in 2017 a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocol received Food and Drug Administration approval for the first time for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
Will Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Improve the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Targets and Clinical Evidence.
BACKGROUND
Although in 2017 a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocol received Food and Drug Administration approval for the first time for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which neural target and which protocol should be used for OCD are still debated. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available open and sham-controlled trials.
METHODS
The primary analysis included a pairwise meta-analysis (over 31 trials), and then subgroup analyses were performed for each targeted brain area. Meta-regression analyses explored the possible moderators of effect size.
RESULTS
The pairwise meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in OCD symptoms following active rTMS (g = -0.45 [95%CI: -0.62, -0.29]) with moderate heterogeneity (I = 34.9%). Subgroup analyses showed a significant effect of rTMS over the bilateral pre-SMA (supplementary motor area), the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), the ACC/mPFC (anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex), and the OFC (orbitofrontal cortex). No moderators of the effect size emerged.
CONCLUSIONS
TMS of several brain targets represents a safe and effective treatment option for OCD patients. Further studies are needed to help clinicians to individualize TMS protocols and targets for each patient.
PubMed: 37511869
DOI: 10.3390/life13071494 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2024Several types of neuromodulation have been investigated for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but they show varied efficacy on pain, functioning, comorbid depression and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Several types of neuromodulation have been investigated for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but they show varied efficacy on pain, functioning, comorbid depression and comorbid anxiety. Whether some types of neuromodulation or some factors are associated with a better response also awaits clarification.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of neuromodulation in patients with fibromyalgia. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO before March 2022. We employed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Forty trials involving 1541 participants were included. Compared with sham control interventions, several types of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) were associated with significant reduction of pain, depression, anxiety, and improvement in functioning. Many significantly effective treatment options involve stimulation of the primary motor cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
CONCLUSION
We concluded that several types of rTMS, tDCS and tRNS may have the potential to be applied for clinical purposes.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Network Meta-Analysis; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38382420
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.01.007 -
Clinical Obesity Dec 2023Several studies demonstrated non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several studies demonstrated non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are safe and simple techniques that can reduce body weight, food cravings, and food consumption in patients with obesity. However, a systematic to evaluate the efficacy of active NIBS versus sham stimulation in reducing body weight and food cravings in patients with obesity is not available. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trial between January 1990 and February 2022. Mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome variables with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to examine the effects of NIBS on body weight and body mass index (BMI), whereas the hedges's g test was used to measure the effects on food craving. Nineteen RCTs involving 571 participants were included in this study. Active neurostimulation (TMS and tDCS) was significantly more likely than sham stimulation to reduce body weight (TMS: -3.29 kg, 95% CI [-5.32, -1.26]; I = 48%; p < .001; tDCS: -0.82 kg, 95% CI [-1.01, -0.62]; I = 0.0%; p = .00) and BMI (TMS: -0.74, 95% CI [-1.17, -0.31]; I = 0% p = .00; tDCS: MD = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.32, 1.21]; I = 0% p = .54) as well as food cravings (TMS: g = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.14]; I = 88 p = .00; tDCS: g = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.02]; p = .04). Compared with sham stimulation, our findings indicate that active NIBS can significantly help to reduce body weight and food cravings. Hence, these novel techniques may be used as primary or adjunct tools in treating patients with obesity.
Topics: Humans; Craving; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Obesity; Brain
PubMed: 37577814
DOI: 10.1111/cob.12611 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive intervention that holds promise for improving cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD)....
INTRODUCTION
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive intervention that holds promise for improving cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the effectiveness of this therapy and the optimal TMS parameters has not reached a consensus. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to systematically discern the effectiveness of different components of TMS protocols on cognitive improvement in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD.
METHODS
The meta-analysis was preregistered on Prospero (registration number: CRD42022345482). PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases were used to search, screen and identify eligible studies with the following keywords: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation OR TMS OR theta burst stimulation AND Alzheimer OR Alzheimers OR Alzheimer's OR mild cognitive impairment OR MCI. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with accepted standardized diagnostic criteria were searched by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influential factors.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies and 25 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The findings revealed a significant overall cognition improvement of real stimulation compared with sham stimulation (short-term effects: SMD, 0.91; 95% CI 0.44-1.38; < 0.01; long-lasting effects: SMD, 0.91; 95% CI 0.27-1.55; < 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral cerebellums, as well as moderate frequency stimulation (5 Hz and 10 Hz) on mild and moderate cognitive impairment patients, were more effective than other TMS protocols. However, the additional application of cognitive training showed no significant improvement.
CONCLUSION
Cognitive improvement effect of TMS was demonstrated in MCI and AD patients in both short-term assessment and long-lasting outcomes, and the efficiency of TMS is affected by the stimulation frequency, stimulation site, and participant characteristics. Further RCTs are needed to validate the findings of our subgroup analysis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022345482, identifier: CRD42022345482.
PubMed: 37528850
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1209205 -
Neurologia 2023Fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is a chronic pathology characterised by widespread pain commonly associated with psychological distress affecting quality of life. In recent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is a chronic pathology characterised by widespread pain commonly associated with psychological distress affecting quality of life. In recent years, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have been investigated to treat chronic pain. The aim of the current review is to determine the effects of tDCS and TMS on the main symptoms of patients with FM.
DEVELOPMENT
A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines was carried out. The search strategy was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PEDro and Cochrane Library. Randomised controlled trials based on the effects of tDCS and TMS on pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), fatigue, anxiety and depression, catastrophising and quality of life in patients with FM were analysed. Fourteen studies were included.
CONCLUSIONS
The application of tDCS to the motor cortex is the only intervention shown to decrease pain in the short and medium-term in patients with FM. The application of both interventions showed improvements in PPT, catastrophising and quality of life when applied to the motor cortex, and in fatigue when applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The effects of these interventions on anxiety and depression are unclear.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Fibromyalgia; Quality of Life; Chronic Pain; Fatigue
PubMed: 37031798
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2020.07.025 -
JAMA Network Open May 2024Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions have been shown to be efficacious in several mental disorders, but the optimal dose stimulation parameters for each... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions have been shown to be efficacious in several mental disorders, but the optimal dose stimulation parameters for each disorder are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To define NIBS dose stimulation parameters associated with the greatest efficacy in symptom improvement across mental disorders.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were drawn from an updated (to April 30, 2023) previous systematic review based on a search of PubMed, OVID, and Web of Knowledge.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials were selected that tested transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for any mental disorder in adults aged 18 years or older.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two authors independently extracted the data. A 1-stage dose-response meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test robustness of the findings. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome was the near-maximal effective doses of total pulses received for TMS and total current dose in coulombs for tDCS.
RESULTS
A total of 110 studies with 4820 participants (2659 men [61.4%]; mean [SD] age, 42.3 [8.8] years) were included. The following significant dose-response associations emerged with bell-shaped curves: (1) in schizophrenia, high-frequency (HF) TMS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) for negative symptoms (χ2 = 9.35; df = 2; P = .009) and TMS on the left temporoparietal junction for resistant hallucinations (χ2 = 36.52; df = 2; P < .001); (2) in depression, HF-DLPFC TMS (χ2 = 14.49; df = 2; P < .001); (3) in treatment-resistant depression, LDLPFC tDCS (χ2 = 14.56; df = 2; P < .001); and (4) in substance use disorder, LDLPFC tDCS (χ2 = 33.63; df = 2; P < .001). The following significant dose-response associations emerged with plateaued or ascending curves: (1) in depression, low-frequency (LF) TMS on the right DLPFC (RDLPFC) with ascending curve (χ2 = 25.67; df = 2; P = .001); (2) for treatment-resistant depression, LF TMS on the bilateral DLPFC with ascending curve (χ2 = 5.86; df = 2; P = .004); (3) in obsessive-compulsive disorder, LF-RDLPFC TMS with ascending curve (χ2 = 20.65; df = 2; P < .001) and LF TMS on the orbitofrontal cortex with a plateaued curve (χ2 = 15.19; df = 2; P < .001); and (4) in posttraumatic stress disorder, LF-RDLPFC TMS with ascending curve (χ2 = 54.15; df = 2; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The study findings suggest that NIBS yields specific outcomes based on dose parameters across various mental disorders and brain regions. Clinicians should consider these dose parameters when prescribing NIBS. Additional research is needed to prospectively validate the findings in randomized, sham-controlled trials and explore how other parameters contribute to the observed dose-response association.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Mental Disorders; Adult; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38776083
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12616 -
Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) Sep 2023This systematic review aimed to review neuroimaging studies comparing clozapine-resistant schizophrenia patients with clozapine-responding patients, and with first-line... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to review neuroimaging studies comparing clozapine-resistant schizophrenia patients with clozapine-responding patients, and with first-line antipsychotic responding (FLR) patients. A total of 19 studies including 6 longitudinal studies were identified. Imaging techniques comprised computerized tomography (CT, n = 3), structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, n = 7), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS, n = 5), functional MRI (n = 1), single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT, n = 3) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI, n = 1). The most consistent finding was hypo-frontality in the clozapine-resistant group compared with the clozapine-responding group with possible differences in frontal-striatal-basal ganglia circuitry as well as the GABA level between the two treatment-resistant groups. Additional statistically significant findings were reported when comparing clozapine-resistant patients with the FLR group, including lower cortical thickness and brain volume of multiple brain regions as well as lower Glx/Cr level in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Both treatment-resistant groups were found to have extensive differences in neurobiological features in comparison with the FLR group. Overall results suggested treatment-resistant schizophrenia is likely to be a neurobiological distinct type of the illness. Clozapine-resistant and clozapine-responding schizophrenia are likely to have both shared and distinct neurobiological features. However, conclusions from existing studies are limited, and future multi-center collaborative studies are required with a consensus clinical definition of patient samples, multimodal imaging tools, and longitudinal study designs.
PubMed: 37752161
DOI: 10.1038/s41537-023-00392-7 -
Schizophrenia Research Nov 2023Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can offer therapeutic benefits and provide value in neurophysiological research. One of the newer TMS paradigms is theta burst... (Review)
Review
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can offer therapeutic benefits and provide value in neurophysiological research. One of the newer TMS paradigms is theta burst stimulation (TBS) which can be delivered in two patterns: continuous (cTBS - inducing LTD-like effects) and intermittent (iTBS - inducing LTP-like effects). This review paper aims to explore studies that have utilized TBS protocols over different areas of the cortex to study the neurophysiological functions and treatment of patients with schizophrenia. PubMed was searched using the following keywords "schizophrenia", "schizoaffective", or "psychosis", and "theta burst stimulation". Out of the 90 articles which were found, thirty met review inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria included studying the reported effect (clinical, physiological, or both) of at least one session of TBS on human subjects, and abstracts (at minimum) must have been in English. The main target areas included prefrontal cortex (12 studies - 10 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), 2 dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC)) vermal cerebellum (5), and temporo-parietal cortex (8). Other target areas included inferior parietal lobe (2), and motor cortex (3). TBS neurophysiological effect was explored in 5 studies using functional magnetic resonance image (fMRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG) and positron emission topography (PET) scan. Overall, TBS can offer great therapeutic potential as it is well-tolerated, feasible, and has few, if any, adverse effects. TBS may be targeted to treat specific symptomatology, as an augmenting intervention to pharmacotherapy, or even improving patient's insight into their diagnosis.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Schizophrenia; Electroencephalography; Prefrontal Cortex; Parietal Lobe; Theta Rhythm
PubMed: 37844414
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2023.10.005 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jan 2024Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of long-term disability with conventional treatments frequently falling short to restore a good quality-of-life.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of long-term disability with conventional treatments frequently falling short to restore a good quality-of-life. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have shown potential as therapeutic options for neuropsychiatric conditions, including TBI sequelae. This study aims at providing a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on post-TBI symptoms.
METHODS
Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adult TBI patients that examined the effects of multiple treatment sessions of NIBS techniques were selected from five databases. Symptoms were clustered into four categories: depression, anxiety, headache and cognitive dysfunctions. Meta-analysis was performed using correlated and hierarchical effects models.
RESULTS
There were only few and heterogeneous studies with generally small sample sizes. Most studies targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Overall, the effects of NIBS were small. However, there was a significant effect for overall symptoms (0.404, p = 0.031). Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed significant overall effects for anxiety (0.195, p = 0.020) and headache (0.354, p = 0.040).
CONCLUSIONS
To date, there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of NIBS concerning treatment for TBI sequelae. The observed effect sizes were modest, suggesting subtle improvements rather than drastic changes. While NIBS techniques remain promising for treating neuropsychiatric conditions, larger RCT studies with longer follow-ups, optimized stimulation parameters and standardized methodology are required to establish their efficacy in addressing TBI sequelae.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37709126
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110863