Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for schizophrenia: a systematic review.

Background: The efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) as an intervention for schizophrenia remain unclear. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of dTMS for schizophrenia. Methods: A systematic search of Chinese (WanFang and Chinese Journal Net) and English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were conducted. Results: Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 80 patients were included in the analyses. Active dTMS was comparable to the sham treatment in improving total psychopathology, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and auditory hallucinations measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale (AHRS), respectively. Only one RCT reported the effects on neurocognitive function measured by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), suggesting that dTMS may only improve one Stockings of Cambridge measure (i.e., subsequent times for five move problems). All three studies reported overall discontinuation rates, which ranged from 16.7% to 44.4%. Adverse events were reported in only one RCT, the most common being tingling/twitching (30.0%, 3/10), head/facial discomfort (30.0%, 3/10), and back pain (20.0%, 2/10). Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that dTMS does not reduce psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia, but it shows potential for improving executive functions. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes focusing on the effects of dTMS on psychotic symptoms and neurocognitive function in schizophrenia are warranted to further explore these findings.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

The efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) in treating treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are unknown. Up to June 21, 2023, we conducted a systematic search for RCTs, and then extracted and synthesized data using random effects models. Five RCTs involving 507 patients with TRD (243 in the active dTMS group and 264 in the control group) were included in the present study. The active dTMS group showed significantly higher study-defined response rate (45.3% versus 24.2%, n = 507, risk ratio [RR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-2.91, I2 = 53%; P = 0.005) and study-defined remission rate (38.3% versus 14.4%, n = 507, RR = 2.37, 95%CI: 1.30-4.32, I2 = 58%; P = 0.005) and superiority in improving depressive symptoms (n = 507, standardized mean difference = -0.65, 95%CI: -1.11--0.18, I2 = 82%; P = 0.006) than the control group. In terms of cognitive functions, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. The two groups also showed similar rates of other adverse events and all-cause discontinuations (P > 0.05). dTMS is an effective and safe treatment strategy for the management of patients with TRD.

Adjunctive continuous theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorder or bipolar depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

OBJECTIVES: As a novel type of theta burst stimulation (TBS), continuous TBS (cTBS) has been shown to have mixed therapeutic effects for major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression (BD). Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cTBS for treating major depressive episodes in patients with MDD or BD. METHODS: A systematic search of four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) was conducted from inception dates to February 3, 2023 to identify eligible studies. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Three RCTs (n = 78, active cTBS = 37 and sham cTBS = 41) were included the meta-analysis. No significant differences were found in terms of change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores (3 RCTs, n = 78, SMD = -0.09, 95 % CI: -0.53 to 0.36; I2 = 0 %; P = 0.71) and study-defined response (2 RCTs, n = 58, 26.7 % versus 21.4 %, RR = 1.20, 95 % CI: 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 0 %; P = 0.70) between active and sham cTBS groups. Similarly, no group differences were found in the rates of adverse events and discontinuation due to any reason (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Meta-analysis had small sample sizes and low number of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although cTBS appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated option for treating major depressive episodes in MDD or BD patients, no advantage in treatment effects was found in this meta-analysis. Future large-scale studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of cTBS for MDD or BD patients with a major depressive episode.

Bilateral theta burst stimulation for patients with acute unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the overall efficacy and safety of bilateral theta-burst stimulation (TBS) as an intervention for patients with mood disorders. METHODS: A systematic search (up to December 7, 2022) of RCTs was conducted to address the study aims. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by including study-defined responses and remission as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included six RCTs comprising 285 participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 233) or a depressive episode in the course of bipolar disorder (BD) (n = 52) who had undergone active bilateral TBS (n = 142) versus sham stimulation (n = 143). Active bilateral TBS outperformed sham stimulation with respect to study-defined improvements (55.1 % versus 20.3 %, 4 RCTs, n = 152, 95%CI: 1.63 to 4.39, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0 %) and remission rates (37.2 % versus 14.3 %, 2 RCTs, n = 85, 95%CI: 1.13 to 5.95, P = 0.02; I2 = 0 %) in MDD patients but not those with bipolar or unipolar mixed depression. Superiority of active bilateral TBS over sham stimulation was confirmed for improvements in depressive symptoms at post-bilateral TBS assessments and 8-week follow-ups in patients with either MDD or mixed depression (all P < 0.05). Discontinuation rates due to any reason and adverse events (i.e., headache, dizziness) were similar between TBS and sham stimulation groups with MDD or mixed depression (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Bilateral TBS targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) appears to be a well-tolerated form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) that has substantial antidepressant effects, particularly in patients with MDD. Effects of bilateral TBS on bipolar and unipolar mixed depression should be further investigated.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent theta burst stimulation versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review.

Objective: Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), which is a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), can produce 600 pulses to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in a stimulation time of just over 3 min. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the safety and efficacy of iTBS and high-frequency (≥ 5 Hz) rTMS (HF-rTMS) for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of iTBS and HF-rTMS were identified by searching English and Chinese databases. The primary outcomes were study-defined response and remission. Results: Two RCTs (n = 474) investigating the efficacy and safety of adjunctive iTBS (n = 239) versus HF-rTMS (n = 235) for adult patients with TRD met the inclusion criteria. Among the two included studies (Jadad score = 5), all were classified as high quality. No group differences were found regarding the overall rates of response (iTBS group: 48.0% versus HF-rTMS group: 45.5%) and remission (iTBS group: 30.0% versus HF-rTMS group: 25.2%; all Ps > 0.05). The rates of discontinuation and adverse events such as headache were similar between the two groups (all Ps > 0.05). Conclusion: The antidepressant effects and safety of iTBS and HF-rTMS appeared to be similar for patients with TRD, although additional RCTs with rigorous methodology are needed.

Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorder or bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (aiTBS) for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression (BD). A random-effects model was adopted to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes using the Review Manager, Version 5.3 software. This meta-analysis (MA) identified five double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 239 MDD or BD patients with a major depressive episode. Active aiTBS overperformed sham stimulation in the study-defined response. This MA found preliminary evidence that active aiTBS resulted in a greater response in treating major depressive episodes in MDD or BD patients than sham stimulation.

Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for children and adolescents with first-episode and drug-naïve major depressive disorder: A systematic review.

Objective: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to explore the therapeutic effects and safety of active low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) versus sham LF-rTMS in children and adolescent patients with first-episode and drug-naïve (FEDN) major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, and data were extracted by two independent researchers. The coprimary outcomes were study-defined response and remission. Results: A systematic search of the literature yielded 442 references, of which 3 RCTs (130 children and adolescents with FEDN MDD, 50.8% male, and mean age range from 14.5 to 17.5 years) met the inclusion criteria. Among the two RCTs (66.7%, 2/3) examining the effects of LF-rTMS on study-defined response and remission and cognitive function, active LF-rTMS was more efficacious than sham LF-rTMS in terms of study-defined response rate and cognitive function (all p < 0.05) but not regarding study-defined remission rate (all p > 0.05). No significant group differences were found with regard to adverse reactions. None of the included RCTs reported the dropout rate. Conclusion: These findings preliminarily found that LF-rTMS could benefit children and adolescents with FEDN MDD in a relatively safe manner, although further studies are warranted.

Transcranial alternating current stimulation for schizophrenia: a systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

Background: In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the application of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in schizophrenia, inconsistent results have been reported. The purpose of this exploratory systematic review of RCTs was to evaluate tACS as an adjunct treatment for patients with schizophrenia based on its therapeutic effects, tolerability, and safety. Methods: Our analysis included RCTs that evaluated adjunctive tACS' effectiveness, tolerability, and safety in schizophrenia patients. Three independent authors extracted data and synthesized it using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Three RCTs involving 76 patients with schizophrenia were encompassed in the analysis, with 40 participants receiving active tACS and 36 receiving sham tACS. Our study revealed a significant superiority of active tACS over sham tACS in improving total psychopathology (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.12, -0.10; I2 = 16%, p = 0.02) and negative psychopathology (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.11, -0.18; I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) in schizophrenia. The two groups, however, showed no significant differences in positive psychopathology, general psychopathology, or auditory hallucinations (all p > 0.05). Two RCTs examined the neurocognitive effects of tACS, yielding varied findings. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of discontinuation due to any reason and adverse events (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Adjunctive tACS is promising as a viable approach for mitigating total and negative psychopathology in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of tACS's therapeutic effects in schizophrenia, it is imperative to conduct extensive, meticulously planned, and well-documented RCTs.

Stanford neuromodulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review.

Objective: This systematic review of randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of stanford neuromodulation therapy (SNT) for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: A systematic search (up to 25 September, 2023) of RCTs and single-arm prospective studies was conducted. Results: One RCT (n = 29) and three single-arm prospective studies (n = 34) met the study entry criteria. In the RCT, compared to sham, active SNT was significantly associated with higher rates of antidepressant response (71.4% versus 13.3%) and remission (57.1% versus 0%). Two out of the three single-arm prospective studies reported the percentage of antidepressant response after completing SNT, ranging from 83.3% (5/6) to 90.5% (19/21). In the three single-arm prospective studies, the antidepressant remission rates ranged from 66.7% (4/6) to 90.5% (19/21). No severe adverse events occurred in all the four studies. Conclusion: This systematic review found SNT significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with TRD within 5 days, without severe adverse events.