Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training for improving response inhibition: A proof-of-concept, single-blind randomised controlled study.

Impaired response inhibition is a common characteristic of various psychiatric disorders. Cognitive training (CT) can improve cognitive function, but the benefits may be limited. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising tool to enhance neuroplasticity, and thereby augment the effects of CT. We aimed to investigate the augmentation effects of rTMS on CT for response inhibition in healthy participants. Sixty healthy participants were randomly assigned to two experimental groups: one with prolonged intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) + CT and the other with sham iTBS + CT over four experimental sessions. Prolonged iTBS (1800 pulses) was used to stimulate the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) and pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) in a counterbalanced order. Participants completed a Stop Signal training task following iTBS over one brain region, followed by the Go/No-Go training task after iTBS over the other brain region. The Stroop task with concomitant electroencephalography was conducted before and immediately after the intervention. There were no significant differences between groups in behavioural outcomes on the Stop Signal task, Go/No-Go task, Stroop task or Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning for Adults. Similarly, analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs) from the Stroop task (N200 and N400) and exploratory cluster-based permutation analysis did not reveal any significant differences between groups. Subgroup analyses revealed that individuals with higher baseline impulsivity exhibited better learning effects in the active group. This first proof of concept study did not find evidence that four sessions of active rTMS + CT could induce cognitive or neurophysiological effects on response inhibition in healthy participants. However, subgroup analyses suggests that rTMS combined with CT could be useful in improving response inhibition in individuals with high impulsivity. It is recommended that future proof of concept studies examine its potential in this clinical population.

Xu X ，Nikolin S ，Moffa AH ，Xu M ，Cao TV ，Loo CK ，Martin DM ... -  《-》

Non-pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia.

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) accounts for approximately 43% of frontotemporal dementias and is mainly characterised by a progressive impairment of speech and communication abilities. Three clinical variants have been identified: (a) non-fluent/agrammatic, (b) semantic, and (c) logopenic/phonological PPA variants. There is currently no curative treatment for PPA, and the disease progresses inexorably over time, with devastating effects on speech and communication ability, functional status, and quality of life. Several non-pharmacological interventions that may improve symptoms (e.g. different forms of language training and non-invasive brain stimulation) have been investigated in people with PPA. To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for people with PPA on word retrieval (our primary outcome), global language functions, cognition, quality of life, and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's trial register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), four other databases and two other trial registers. The latest searches were run on 26 January 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in people with PPA. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. There were insufficient data available to conduct the network meta-analyses that we had originally planned (due to trial data being insufficiently reported or not reported at all, as well as the heterogeneous content of the included interventions). Therefore, we provide a descriptive summary of the included studies and results. We included 10 studies, with a total of 132 participants, evaluating non-pharmacological interventions. These were: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as stand-alone treatments (used by two and one studies, respectively); tDCS combined with semantic and phonological word-retrieval training (five studies); tDCS combined with semantic word-retrieval training (one study); and tDCS combined with phonological word-retrieval training (one study). Results for our primary outcome of word retrieval were mixed. For the two studies that investigated the effects of tDCS as stand-alone treatment compared to placebo ("sham") tDCS, we rated the results as having very low-certainty evidence. One study found a significant beneficial effect on word retrieval after active tDCS; one study did not report any significant effects in favour of the active tDCS group. Five studies investigated tDCS administered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, left frontotemporal region, or the temporoparietal cortex, combined with semantic and phonological word-retrieval training. The most consistent finding was enhancement of word-retrieval ability for trained items immediately after the intervention, when behavioural training was combined with active tDCS compared to behavioural training plus sham tDCS. We found mixed effects for untrained items and maintenance of treatment effects during follow-up assessments. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low in all studies. One study investigated tDCS combined with semantic word-retrieval training. Training was provided across 15 sessions with a frequency of three to five sessions per week, depending on the personal preferences of the participants. tDCS targeted the left frontotemporal region. The study included three participants: two received 1 mA stimulation and one received 2 mA stimulation. The study showed mixed results. We rated it as very low-certainty evidence. One study investigated tDCS combined with phonological word-retrieval training. Training was again provided across 15 sessions over a period of three weeks. tDCS targeted the left inferior frontal gyrus. This study showed a significantly more pronounced improvement for trained and untrained words in favour of the group that had received active tDCS, but we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low. One study compared active rTMS applied to an individually determined target site to active rTMS applied to a control site (vertex) for effects on participants' word retrieval. This study demonstrated better word retrieval for active rTMS administered to individually determined target brain regions than in the control intervention, but we rated the results as having a very low certainty of evidence. Four studies assessed overall language ability, three studies assessed cognition, five studies assessed potential adverse effects of brain stimulation, and one study investigated quality of life. There is currently no high-certainty evidence to inform clinical decision-making regarding non-pharmacological treatment selection for people with PPA. Preliminary evidence suggests that the combination of active tDCS with specific language therapy may improve impaired word retrieval for specifically trained items beyond the effects of behavioural treatment alone. However, more research is needed, including high-quality RCTs with detailed descriptions of participants and methods, and consideration of outcomes such as quality of life, depressive symptoms, and overall cognitive functioning. Moreover, studies assessing optimal treatments (i.e. behavioural interventions, brain stimulation interventions, and their combinations) for individual patients and PPA subtypes are needed. We were not able to conduct the planned (network) meta-analyses due to missing data that could not be obtained from most of the authors, a general lack of RCTs in the field, and heterogeneous interventions in eligible trials. Journals should implement a mandatory data-sharing requirement to assure transparency and accessibility of data from clinical trials.

Roheger M ，Riemann S ，Brauer A ，McGowan E ，Grittner U ，Flöel A ，Meinzer M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

The application of neuronavigated rTMS of the supplementary motor area and rhythmic speech training for stuttering intervention.

Stuttering, a neurodevelopmental speech fluency disorder, is associated with intermittent disruptions of speech-motor control. Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter (AWS) concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies suggest that supplementary motor area (SMA) which play a crucial role in speech initiation, planning and internal timing shows aberrant activation in speech production of AWS and may contribute to stuttering. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments. The present study aims to investigate whether excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the SMA and rhythmic speech can consistently reduce stuttering severity across various measures. Ten self-identified Cantonese-speaking AWS participated in this double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial study (NCT05472181). The participants underwent 10 sessions of rhythmic speech training across two phases, combined with either neuronavigated rTMS or sham, with a 2-week washout period between phases. The stuttering severity was assessed through various outcome measures, including the percentage of syllables stuttered, self-perceived stuttering severity, and the brief version of Unhelpful Thoughts and Beliefs About Stuttering before and after each treatment phase. Results demonstrated improved speech fluency in various speaking contexts, with no significant difference between rTMS and sham conditions immediately and 1 week post-treatment. Notably, rTMS specifically led to less stuttering in tongue twister production (d = -0.70). Both treatment conditions effectively reduced self-perceived stuttering severity and negative thoughts and beliefs about stuttering. The findings of this study indicate that stimulating the SMA reduced stuttering, only in the production of tongue twisters that may require greater motor control and coordination. Furthermore, it indicates that rhythmic speech might help alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety related to stuttering. This research contributes to our understanding of neuromodulation in stuttering treatment and the role of the SMA in speech motor control and emphasises the need for more research on the potential benefits and limitations of applying rTMS in this condition. What is already known on the subject Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies indicate that aberrant neural activation in speech production regions, like the supplementary motor area (SMA), is involved in stuttering. The SMA plays a crucial role in initiating, planning, and sequencing motor behaviours. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation (e.g., transcranial direct current stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation) may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments. What this paper adds to existing knowledge There is limited knowledge regarding the potential effects of stimulating the SMA to enhance speech fluency in people who stutter. Existing research primarily consists of single case studies that lack proper control conditions or involve only a single stimulation session. Due to their limited scope and power, these studies may not provide sufficient evidence. The current study expands upon existing research by investigating whether multiple sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the SMA, combined with rhythmic speech, improve speech fluency in adults who stutter. Furthermore, it addresses the limitations of brain stimulation methods and proposes directions for future research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study implies that the stimulation of SMA reduced stuttering only in speaking contexts that may require greater motor control and coordination such as tongue twisters. Additionally, the research suggests that using rhythmic speech could potentially alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety associated with stuttering.

Bakhtiar M ，Yeung TWY ，Choi A 《-》

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.

The estimated lifetime prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults worldwide has been estimated at 3.9%. PTSD appears to contribute to alterations in neuronal network connectivity patterns. Current pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD are associated with inadequate symptom improvement and high dropout rates. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive therapy involving induction of electrical currents in cortical brain tissue, may be an important treatment option for PTSD to improve remission rates and for people who cannot tolerate existing treatments. To assess the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two clinical trials registers. We checked reference lists of relevant articles. The most recent search was January 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of rTMS versus sham rTMS for PTSD in adults from any treatment setting, including veterans. Eligible trials employed at least five rTMS treatment sessions with both active and sham conditions. We included trials with combination interventions, where a pharmacological agent or psychotherapy was combined with rTMS for both intervention and control groups. We included studies meeting the above criteria regardless of whether they reported any of our outcomes of interest. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane standards. Primary outcomes were PTSD severity immediately after treatment and serious adverse events during active treatment. Secondary outcomes were PTSD remission, PTSD response, PTSD severity at two follow-up time points after treatment, dropouts, and depression and anxiety severity immediately after treatment. We included 13 RCTs in the review (12 published; 1 unpublished dissertation), with 577 participants. Eight studies included stand-alone rTMS treatment, four combined rTMS with an evidence-based psychotherapeutic treatment, and one investigated rTMS as an adjunctive to treatment-as-usual. Five studies were conducted in the USA, and some predominantly included white, male veterans. Active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.54 to 0.27; 3 studies, 99 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence by one level for imprecision (sample size insufficient to detect a difference of medium effect size). We deemed one study as having a low risk of bias and the remaining two as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. A sensitivity analysis of change-from-baseline scores enabled inclusion of a greater number of studies (6 studies, 252 participants). This analysis yielded a similar outcome to our main analysis but also indicated significant heterogeneity in efficacy across studies, including two studies with a high risk of bias. Reported rates of serious adverse events were low, with seven reported (active rTMS: 6; sham rTMS: 1). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of active rTMS on serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 5.26, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.81; 5 studies, 251 participants; very low-certainty evidence [Active rTMS: 23/1000, sham rTMS: 4/1000]). We downgraded the evidence by one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision. We rated four of five studies as having a high risk of bias, and the fifth as 'some concerns' for bias. We were unable to assess PTSD remission immediately after treatment as none of the included studies reported this outcome. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our review suggests that active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment compared to sham stimulation. However, significant heterogeneity in efficacy was detected when we included a larger number of studies in sensitivity analysis. We observed considerable variety in participant and protocol characteristics across studies included in this review. For example, studies tended to be weighted towards inclusion of either male veterans or female civilians. Studies varied greatly in terms of the proportion of the sample with comorbid depression. Study protocols differed in treatment design and stimulation parameters (e.g. session number/duration, treatment course length, stimulation intensity/frequency, location of stimulation). These differences may affect efficacy, particularly when considering interactions with participant factors. Reported rates of serious adverse events were very low (< 1%) across active and sham conditions. It is uncertain whether rTMS increases the risk of serious adverse event occurrence, as our certainty of evidence was very low. Studies frequently lacked clear definitions for serious adverse events, as well as detail on tracking/assessment of data and information on the safety population. Increased reporting on these elements would likely aid the advancement of both research and clinical recommendations of rTMS for PTSD. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to meta-analyze PTSD remission, PTSD treatment response, and PTSD severity at different periods post-treatment. Further research into these outcomes could inform the clinical use of rTMS. Additionally, the relatively large contribution of data from trials that focused on white male veterans may limit the generalizability of our conclusions. This could be addressed by prioritizing recruitment of more diverse participant samples.

Brown R ，Cherian K ，Jones K ，Wickham R ，Gomez R ，Sahlem G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》