Search

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with electroencephalography (EEG), that is TMS-EEG, may assist in managing epilepsy. We systematically reviewed the quality of reporting and findings in TMS-EEG studies on people with epilepsy and healthy controls, and on healthy individuals taking anti-seizure medication. We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for original TMS-EEG studies comparing people with epilepsy and healthy controls, and healthy subjects before and after taking anti-seizure medication. Studies should involve quantitative analyses of TMS-evoked EEG responses. We evaluated the reporting of study population characteristics and TMS-EEG protocols (TMS sessions and equipment, TMS trials and EEG protocol), assessed the variation between protocols, and recorded the main TMS-EEG findings. We identified 20 articles reporting 14 unique study populations and TMS methodologies. The median reporting rate for the group of people with epilepsy parameters was 3.5/7 studies and for the TMS parameters was 13/14 studies. TMS protocols varied between studies. Fifteen out of 28 anti-seizure medication trials in total were evaluated with time-domain analyses of single-pulse TMS-EEG data. Anti-seizure medication significantly increased N45, and decreased N100 and P180 component amplitudes but in marginal numbers (N45: 8/15, N100: 7/15, P180: 6/15). Eight articles compared people with epilepsy and controls using different analyses, thus limiting comparability. The reporting quality and methodological uniformity between studies evaluating TMS-EEG as an epilepsy biomarker is poor. The inconsistent findings question the validity of TMS-EEG as an epilepsy biomarker. To demonstrate TMS-EEG clinical applicability, methodology and reporting standards are required., (© 2023 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Epilepsy and migraine are paroxysmal neurological conditions associated with disturbances of cortical excitability. No useful biomarkers to monitor disease activity in these conditions are available. Phase clustering was previously described in electroencephalographic (EEG) responses to photic stimulation and may be a potential epilepsy biomarker., Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate EEG phase clustering in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), compare it with photic stimulation in controls, and explore its potential as a biomarker of genetic generalized epilepsy or migraine with aura., Methods: People with (possible) juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME), migraine with aura, and healthy controls underwent single-pulse TMS with concomitant EEG recording during the interictal period. We compared phase clustering after TMS with photic stimulation across the groups using permutation-based testing., Results: We included eight people with (possible) JME (five off medication, three on), 10 with migraine with aura, and 37 controls. The TMS and photic phase clustering spectra showed significant differences between those with epilepsy without medication and controls. Two phase clustering-based indices successfully captured these differences between groups. One participant was tested multiple times. In this case, the phase clustering-based indices were inversely correlated with the dose of antiepileptic medication. Phase clustering did not differ between people with migraine and controls., Conclusion: We present methods to quantify phase clustering using TMS-EEG and show its potential value as a measure of brain network activity in genetic generalized epilepsy. Our results suggest that the higher propensity to phase clustering is not shared between genetic generalized epilepsy and migraine., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cortical excitability, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electromyography, is a potential biomarker for the diagnosis and follow-up of epilepsy. We report on long-interval intracortical inhibition data measured in four different centres in healthy controls (n = 95), subjects with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (n = 40) and with refractory focal epilepsy (n = 69). Long-interval intracortical inhibition was measured by applying two supra-threshold stimuli with an interstimulus interval of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ms and calculating the ratio between the response to the second (test stimulus) and to the first (conditioning stimulus). In all subjects, the median response ratio showed inhibition at all interstimulus intervals. Using a mixed linear-effects model, we compared the long-interval intracortical inhibition response ratios between the different subject types. We conducted two analyses; one including data from the four centres and one excluding data from Centre 2, as the methods in this centre differed from the others. In the first analysis, we found no differences in long-interval intracortical inhibition between the different subject types. In all subjects, the response ratios at interstimulus intervals 100 and 150 ms showed significantly more inhibition than the response ratios at 50, 200 and 250 ms. Our second analysis showed a significant interaction between interstimulus interval and subject type (P = 0.0003). Post hoc testing showed significant differences between controls and refractory focal epilepsy at interstimulus intervals of 100 ms (P = 0.02) and 200 ms (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between controls and refractory generalized epilepsy groups or between the refractory generalized and focal epilepsy groups. Our results do not support the body of previous work that suggests that long-interval intracortical inhibition is significantly reduced in refractory focal and genetic generalized epilepsy. Results from the second analysis are even in sharper contrast with previous work, showing inhibition in refractory focal epilepsy at 200 ms instead of facilitation previously reported. Methodological differences, especially shorter intervals between the pulse pairs, may have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings. Based on our results, we suggest that long-interval intracortical inhibition as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography is unlikely to have clinical use as a biomarker of epilepsy., (© The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used for safe, noninvasive probing of cortical excitability (CE). We review 50 studies that measured CE in people with epilepsy. Most showed cortical hyperexcitability, which can be corrected with anti-epileptic drug treatment. Several studies showed that decrease of CE after epilepsy surgery is predictive of good seizure outcome. CE is a potential biomarker for epilepsy. Clinical application may include outcome prediction of drug treatment and epilepsy surgery.

Introduction: The lack of reliable biomarkers constrain epilepsy management. We assessed the potential of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation with electromyography (TMS‐EMG) to track dynamical changes in cortical excitability on a within‐subject basis. Methods: We recruited people with refractory focal epilepsy who underwent video‐EEG monitoring and drug tapering as part of the presurgical evaluation. We performed daily TMS‐EMG measurements with additional postictal assessments 1–6 h following seizures to assess resting motor threshold (rMT), and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) with single‐ and paired‐pulse protocols. Anti‐seizure medication (ASM) regimens were recorded for the day before each measurement and expressed in proportion to the dosage before tapering. Additional measurements were performed in healthy controls to evaluate day‐to‐day rMT variability. Results: We performed 77 (58 baseline, 19 postictal) measurements in 16 people with focal epilepsy and 35 in seven healthy controls. Controls showed minimal day‐to‐day rMT variation. Withdrawal of ASMs was associated with a lower rMT without affecting MEPs of single‐ and paired‐pulse TMS‐EMG paradigms. Postictal measurements following focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures demonstrated unaltered rMT and increased short interval intracortical inhibition, while measurements following focal seizures with impaired awareness showed decreased rMT's and reduced short and long interval intracortical inhibition. Conclusion: Serial within‐subject rMT measurements yielded reproducible, stable results in healthy controls. ASM tapering and seizures had distinct effects on TMS‐EMG excitability indices in people with epilepsy. Drug tapering decreased rMT, indicating increased overall corticospinal excitability, whereas seizures affected intracortical inhibition with contrasting effects between seizure types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cortical excitability, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electromyography, is a potential biomarker for the diagnosis and follow-up of epilepsy. We report on long-interval intracortical inhibition data measured in four different centres in healthy controls (n = 95), subjects with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (n = 40) and with refractory focal epilepsy (n = 69). Long-interval intracortical inhibition was measured by applying two supra-threshold stimuli with an interstimulus interval of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ms and calculating the ratio between the response to the second (test stimulus) and to the first (conditioning stimulus). In all subjects, the median response ratio showed inhibition at all interstimulus intervals. Using a mixed linear-effects model, we compared the long-interval intracortical inhibition response ratios between the different subject types. We conducted two analyses; one including data from the four centres and one excluding data from Centre 2, as the methods in this centre differed from the others. In the first analysis, we found no differences in long-interval intracortical inhibition between the different subject types. In all subjects, the response ratios at interstimulus intervals 100 and 150 ms showed significantly more inhibition than the response ratios at 50, 200 and 250 ms. Our second analysis showed a significant interaction between interstimulus interval and subject type (P = 0.0003). Post hoc testing showed significant differences between controls and refractory focal epilepsy at interstimulus intervals of 100 ms (P = 0.02) and 200 ms (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between controls and refractory generalized epilepsy groups or between the refractory generalized and focal epilepsy groups. Our results do not support the body of previous work that suggests that long-interval intracortical inhibition is significantly reduced in refractory focal and genetic generalized epilepsy. Results from the second analysis are even in sharper contrast with previous work, showing inhibition in refractory focal epilepsy at 200 ms instead of facilitation previously reported. Methodological differences, especially shorter intervals between the pulse pairs, may have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings. Based on our results, we suggest that long-interval intracortical inhibition as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography is unlikely to have clinical use as a biomarker of epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]