Search

We report the effects of a 4-week trial of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (DTMS) on depressive and anxious symptoms and brain activity in a patient (Mrs A) with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The protocol involved a pre- and a post-functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan during which Mrs A had to perform a working memory task (i.e.,n-back). Her baseline score on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) was 24, indicating severe depressive symptoms. Immediately after 4 weeks of daily DTMS treatment applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), her HAM-D21score decreased to 13 (a 46% reduction), and 1 month later, it was 12 (a 50% reduction). Moreover, Mrs A’s accuracy scores on then-back task (i.e., 2-back condition) improved from 79% (baseline) to 96% (after DTMS treatment). At the neural level, Mrs A showed significantly increased brain activity in the working memory network (e.g., DLPFC, parietal cortex) during the execution of the 2-back condition after DTMS treatment compared to baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials on low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have yielded conflicting evidence concerning its overall efficacy for treating major depression (MD). As this may have been the result of limited statistical power of individual trials, we have carried the present systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this issue. We searched the literature for English language randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on LF-rTMS for treating MD from 1995 through July 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and from October 2008 until July 2012 using MEDLINE. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates as well as overall dropout rates at study end. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT). Data were obtained from eight RCTs, totaling 263 subjects with MD. After an average of 12.6±3.9 rTMS sessions, 38.2% (50/131) and 15.1% (20/132) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as responders (OR=3.35; 95% CI=1.4-8.02; p=0.007). Also, 34.6% (35/101) and 9.7% (10/103) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as remitters (OR=4.76; 95% CI=2.13-10.64; p<0.0001). The associated NNT for both response and remission rates was 5. Sensitivity analyses have shown that protocols delivering >1200 magnetic pulses in total as well as those offering rTMS as a monotherapy for MD were associated with higher rates of response to treatment. No differences on mean baseline depression scores and dropout rates for active and sham rTMS groups were found. Finally, the risk of publication bias was low. In conclusion, LF-rTMS is a promising treatment for MD, as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of standard antidepressants and high-frequency rTMS. Furthermore, LF-rTMS seems to be an acceptable intervention for depressed subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies suggest that stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) reduces food craving in bulimic patients, but evidence supporting repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a therapeutic tool is lacking. We investigated the safety and therapeutic efficacy of an adjunct high-frequency rTMS programme targeting the left DLPFC. Forty-seven women with bulimia nervosa were randomised to a real or sham stimulation group. The real group underwent 10 rTMS sessions, each consisting of 20 trains of 5 seconds with 55-second intervals between trains, at a frequency of 10 Hz. The main outcome was the number of binge episodes in the 15 days following the end of stimulation. Overall, no significant improvement in bingeing and purging symptoms was noted after the programme. rTMS was well tolerated. This suggests that 10 sessions of high-frequency rTMS to the left DLPFC provide no greater benefit than placebo. Future studies should consider methodological issues as well as alternative targets. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.)