A preliminary randomized controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in treatment seeking participants with cannabis use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a common and consequential disorder. When applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) reduces craving across substance use disorders and may have therapeutic clinical effects when applied in serial-sessions. The present study sought to preliminarily determine whether serial-sessions of rTMS applied to the DLPFC had a therapeutic effect in CUD. METHODS: This study was a two-site, phase-2, double-blind, randomized-controlled-trial. Seventy-two treatment-seeking participants (37.5% Women, mean age 30.2±9.9SD) with ≥moderate-CUD were randomized to active or sham rTMS (Beam-F3, 10Hz, 20-total-sessions, two-sessions-per-visit, two-visits-per-week, with cannabis cues) while undergoing a three-session motivational enhancement therapy intervention. The primary outcome was the change in craving between pre- and post- treatment (Marijuana Craving Questionnaire Short-Form-MCQ-SF). Secondary outcomes included the number of weeks of abstinence and the number of days-per-week of cannabis use during 4-weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in craving between conditions. Participants who received active-rTMS reported numerically, but not significantly, more weeks of abstinence in the follow-up period than those who received sham-rTMS (15.5%-Active; 9.3%-Sham; rate ratio = 1.66 [95% CI: 0.84, 3.28]; p=0.14). Participants who received active-rTMS reported fewer days-per-week of cannabis use over the final two-weeks of the follow-up period than those receiving sham-rTMS (Active vs. Sham: -0.72; Z=-2.33, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This trial suggests rTMS is safe and feasible in individuals with CUD and may have a therapeutic effect on frequency of cannabis use, though further study is needed with additional rTMS-sessions and a longer follow-up period.

A Preliminary Investigation Of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Applied To The Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex In Treatment Seeking Participants With Cannabis Use Disorder.

Background: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a common and consequential disorder. When applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) reduces craving across substance use disorders and may have a therapeutic clinical effect when applied in serial sessions. The present study sought to preliminarily determine whether serial sessions of rTMS applied to the DLPFC had a therapeutic effect in CUD. Methods: This study was a two-site, phase-2, double-blind, randomized-controlled-trial. Seventy-two treatment-seeking participants (37.5% Women, mean age 30.2±9.9SD) with ≥moderate-CUD were randomized to active or sham rTMS (Beam-F3, 10Hz, 20-total-sessions, with cannabis cues) while undergoing a three-session motivational enhancement therapy intervention. The primary outcome was the change in craving between pre- and post-treatment (Marijuana Craving Questionnaire Short-Form-MCQ-SF). Secondary outcomes included the number of weeks of abstinence and the number of days-per-week of cannabis use during 4-weeks of follow-up. Results: There were no significant differences in craving between conditions. Participants who received active rTMS reported numerically, but not significantly, more weeks of abstinence in the follow-up period than those who received sham rTMS (15.5%-Active; 9.3%-Sham; rate ratio = 1.66 [95% CI: 0.84, 3.28]; p=0.14). Participants who received active rTMS reported fewer days-per-week of cannabis use over the final two-weeks of the follow-up period (Active vs. Sham: -0.72; Z=-2.33, p=0.02). Conclusions: This trial suggests rTMS is safe and feasible in individuals with CUD and may have a therapeutic effect on frequency of cannabis use, though further study is needed with additional rTMS-sessions and a longer follow-up period.

A Comprehensive Review of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Depression.

OBJECTIVES: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is reemerging as an exciting form of brain stimulation, due in part to the development of its noninvasive counterpart transcutaneous auricular VNS. As the field grows, it is important to understand where VNS emerged from, including its history and the studies that were conducted over the past four decades. Here, we offer a comprehensive review of the history of VNS in the treatment of major depression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed, we reviewed the history of VNS and aggregated the literature into a narrative review of four key VNS epochs: 1) early invention and development of VNS, 2) path to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for depression, 3) refinement of VNS treatment parameters, and 4) neuroimaging of VNS. RESULTS: VNS was described in the literature in the early 1900s; however, gained traction in the 1980s as Zabara and colleagues developed an implantable neurocybernetic prosthesis to treat epilepsy. As epilepsy trials proceed in the 1990s, promising mood effects emerged and were studied, ultimately leading to the approval of VNS for depression in 2005. Since then, there have been advances in understanding the mechanism of action. Imaging techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography further aid in understanding direct brain effects of VNS. CONCLUSIONS: The mood effects of VNS were discovered from clinical trials investigating the use of VNS for reducing seizures in epileptic patients. Since then, VNS has gone on to be FDA approved for depression. The field of VNS is growing, and as noninvasive VNS quickly advances, it is important to consider a historical perspective to develop future brain stimulation therapies.

A Review of Parameter Settings for Invasive and Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Applied in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an established form of neuromodulation with a long history of promising applications. Earliest reports of VNS in the literature date to the late 1800's in experiments conducted by Dr. James Corning. Over the past century, both invasive and non-invasive VNS have demonstrated promise in treating a variety of disorders, including epilepsy, depression, and post-stroke motor rehabilitation. As VNS continues to rapidly grow in popularity and application, the field generally lacks a consensus on optimum stimulation parameters. Stimulation parameters have a significant impact on the efficacy of neuromodulation, and here we will describe the longitudinal evolution of VNS parameters in the following categorical progression: (1) animal models, (2) epilepsy, (3) treatment resistant depression, (4) neuroplasticity and rehabilitation, and (5) transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS). We additionally offer a historical perspective of the various applications and summarize the range and most commonly used parameters in over 130 implanted and non-invasive VNS studies over five applications.

The Effects of Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy Compared With Ultrabrief Pulse Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy on Suicidal Ideation: A 2-Site Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary data suggest that focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST) has antidepressant effects and less adverse cognitive effects than traditional forms of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This study compared the impact of FEAST and ultrabrief pulse, right unilateral (UB-RUL) ECT on suicidal ideation. METHODS: At 2 sites, patients in a major depressive episode were treated openly with FEAST or UB-RUL ECT, depending on their preference. The primary outcome measure was scores on the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI). Scores on the suicide item of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-SI) provided a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included in the intent-to-treat sample (FEAST, n = 20; UB-RUL ECT, n = 19). Scores on both the SSI and HRSD-SI were equivalently reduced with both interventions. Both responders and nonresponders to the interventions showed substantial reductions in SSI and HRSD-SI scores, although the magnitude of improvement was greater among treatment responders. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the open-label, nonrandomized design, FEAST showed comparable effects on suicidal ideation when compared with routine use of UB-RUL ECT. These results are encouraging and support the need for further research and a noninferiority trial.

A two-site, open-label, non-randomized trial comparing Focal Electrically-Administered Seizure Therapy (FEAST) and right unilateral ultrabrief pulse electroconvulsive therapy (RUL-UBP ECT).

BACKGROUND: Focal Electrically-Administered Seizure Therapy (FEAST) is a form of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) that spatially focuses the electrical stimulus to initiate seizure activity in right prefrontal cortex. Two open-label non-comparative studies suggested that FEAST has reduced cognitive side effects when compared to historical data from other forms of ECT. In two different ECT clinics, we compared the efficacy and cognitive side effects of FEAST and Right Unilateral Ultrabrief Pulse (RUL-UBP) ECT. METHODS: Using a non-randomized, open-label design, 39 depressed adults were recruited after referral for ECT. Twenty patients received FEAST (14 women; age 45.2 ± 12.7), and 19 received RUL-UBP ECT (16 women; age 43.2 ± 16.4). Key cognitive outcome measures were the postictal time to reorientation and the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview: Short-Form (CUAMI-SF). Antidepressant effects were assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD24). RESULTS: In the Intent-to-treat sample, a repeated measures mixed model suggested no between group difference in HRSD24 score over time (F1,35 = 0.82, p = 0.37), while the response rate favored FEAST (FEAST: 65%; RUL-UBP ECT: 57.9%), and the remission rate favored RUL-UBP ECT (FEAST: 35%; RUL-UBP ECT: 47.4%). The FEAST group had numeric superiority in average time to reorientation (FEAST: 6.6 ± 5.0 min; RUL-UBP ECT: 8.8 ± 5.8 min; Cohens d = 0.41), and CUAMI-SF consistency score (FEAST: 69.2 ± 14.2%; RUL-UBP ECT: 63.9 ± 9.9%; Cohens d = 0.43); findings that failed to meet statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: FEAST exerts similar efficacy relative to an optimal form of conventional ECT and may have milder cognitive side effects. A blinded, randomized, non-inferiority trial is needed.