Frequency and characteristics of recurrent major depressed patients with unimpaired executive functions.
ABSTRACT Major depression is associated with impairment of cognitive functions, and especially higher-order cognitive processes referred to as executive functions (EF). Whether this is a general finding is unclear. Patients without EF impairment may have different treatment needs than patients with EF impairment, and will probably have a better everyday functioning. Thus, it is important to identify the prevalence and characteristics of depressed patients without EF impairment. Forty-three patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (19-51 years) and 50 healthy controls were included in the study. The subjects were assessed with neuropsychological tests selected to measure central areas of EF, and screened on clinical and demographic variables. Within the depressed group, a total of 56% were defined as EF unimpaired. These patients were characterised by higher intellectual abilities and fewer depression episodes than the subgroup of patients with EF impairment. The subgroups were similar in age at debut of illness, severity of depression, general psychopathology and global level of functioning. In conclusion, about half of patients with recurrent major depression have normal EF. Since cognitive impairment and depressive symptomatology seem to be distinct dimensions, a neuropsychological investigation could help to ensure optimal treatment in patients with recurrent major depression.
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (1)
-
Article: Cognitive functioning in major depression--a summary.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of the present paper is to summarize the research during the past decade regarding cognitive functioning in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Cognitive impairment in the acute phase of illness has been frequently reported. The findings are shown in different cognitive domains, such as executive functions, attention, memory and psychomotor speed. Fewer reports have investigated cognitive functioning in MDD in longitudinal studies. Some longitudinal reports show that the impairment observed in the acute phase of illness may be long lasting despite symptom reduction and recovery. However, findings regarding cognitive functioning in depression are divergent. Factors that might contribute to the divergent findings, such as depression subtype, severity and comorbidity are discussed. Clinical implications and focus of future research directions is highlighted.In conclusion, depression is associated with cognitive impairment in the acute phase of illness, and some reports indicate that this impairment might be long lasting despite symptom reduction and recovery.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 01/2009; 3:26. · 2.34 Impact Factor
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
Visit our webpage for more information: www.tandf.no/wjbp
Chief Editor
Hans-Ju ¨rgen Mo ¨ller
Department of Psychiatry
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Nussbaumstrasse 7
80336 Munich
Germany
Tel: ? /49 89 5160 5501
Fax: ? /49 89 5160 5522
E-mail: hans-juergen.moeller@med.uni-muenchen.de
Assistant Chief Editor
Rainer Rupprecht
Department of Psychiatry
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Nussbaumstrasse 7
80336 Munich
Germany
Tel: ? /49 89 5160 2770
Fax: ? /49 89 5160 5524
E-mail: rainer.rupprecht@med.uni-muenchen.de
Associate Editors
Carlos Roberto Hojaij
The Melbourne Institute of Biological
Psychiatry
511 Whitehorse Road
Surrey Hills 3127
Melbourne
Australia
Tel: ? /61 3 9836 0088
Fax: ? /61 3 9836 0644
Joseph Zohar
Chaim Sheba Medical Center
Division of Psychiatry
Tel-Hashomer, 52621
Israel
Tel: ? /972 3 530 3300
Fax: ? /972 3 535 2788
Editorial Board
Hagop Akiskal (USA)
Helmut Beckmann (Germany)
Robert H. Belmaker (Israel)
Graham Burrows (Australia)
Arvid Carlsson (Sweden)
Giovanni B Cassano (Italy)
Marcelo Cetkovich-Bakmas (Argentina)
Delcir da Costa (Brazil)
Frederick Goodwin (USA)
Jose Luis Ayuso Gutierrez (Spain)
Ralf P Hemmingsen (Denmark)
Eric Hollander (USA)
Florian Holsboer (Germany)
Lewis L Judd (USA)
Nobumasa Kato (Japan)
Martin B Keller (USA)
Yves Lecrubier (France)
Brian Leonard (Ireland)
Odd Lingjaerde (Norway)
Henri Loo (France)
Juan J Lopez-Ibor (Spain)
Mario Maj (Italy)
Herbert Y Meltzer (USA)
Julien Mendlewicz (Belgium)
Philip Mitchell (Australia)
Stuart Montgomery (UK)
David Nutt (UK)
Tatsuro Ohta (Japa)
Ahmed Okasha (Egypt)
Antonio Pacheco Palha (Portugal)
Stanislaw Puzynski (Poland)
Giorgio Racagni (Italy)
Americo Reyes-Tucas (Honduras)
Philippe H Robert (France)
Bernd Saletu (Austria)
Norman Sartorius (Switzerland)
Jan Sikora (Czech Republic)
Hernan Silva-Ibarra (Chile)
Constantin Soldatos (Greece)
Costas Stefanis (Greece)
Dan J Stein (South Africa)
Saburo Takahashi (Japan)
Marcio Versiani (Brazil)
Jerzy Vetulani (Poland)
Daniel Weinberger (USA)
Regional Editors
Africa, Driss Moussaoui (Morocco)
Asia, Takuya Kojima (Japan),
Europe, Birte Glenthøj (Denmark)
Siegfried Kasper (Austria)
Latin-America, Wagner Gattaz (Brazil)
North America, Charles Nemeroff (USA)
Owen M. Wolkowitz (USA)
Oceania, Isaac Schweitzer (Australia)
Editorial Assistant
Jacqueline Klesing
Department of Psychiatry
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Nussbaumstrasse 7
80336 Munich
Germany
Tel: ? /49 89 5160 5531
Fax: ? /49 89 5160 5530
E-mail:
jacqueline.klesing@med.uni-muenchen.de
Manuscripts should be addressed to:
Dorothea Bode
Editorial Administrator
Department of Psychiatry
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Nussbaumstrasse 7
80336 Munich
Germany
Tel: ? /49 89 5160 5505
Fax: ? /49 89 5160 5530
E-mail:
dorothea.bode@med.uni-muenchen.de
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Box 12 Posthuset
Biskop Gunnerusgt. 14A
NO-0051 Oslo
Norway
Tel: ? /47 23 10 34 60
Fax: ? /47 23 10 34 61
E-mail: post@tandf.no
Printers
Typeset by Datapage International Ltd., Dublin,
Ireland
Printed by Hobbs the Printers, Hampshire, UK
Subscription Information
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, ISSN print edition
1562-2975, online edition 1814-1412, is published four times a year.
Annual subscription rates for volume 6, 2005: Institutions: $320,
individuals $140. Postage included. Air speed delivery to subscribers
worldwide. Supplements are supplied free of charge to all
subscribers. Free electronic access is available to all subscribers of
the print version.
Orders for subscription, back issues and change of address should
be sent to: Taylor & Francis, PO Box 6397, Basingstoke, Hampshire
RG24 8QS, UK. Fax: +44 (0) 1256 330245. E-mail: orders@tandf.co.uk
Taylor & Francis retains a three year back issue stock of journals.
Older volumes are held by our official stockists: Periodicals Service
Company (http://www.periodicals.com/tandf.html) 11 Main Street,
Germantown, NY 12526, USA, to whom all orders and enquiries
should be addressed. Tel: +1 518 537 4700. Fax: 1 518 537 5899. E-mail:
psc@periodicals.com
Correspondence concerning publishing matters, copyright, permis-
sions and reprints should be addressed to: Taylor & Francis, PO Box
12 Posthuset, NO-0051 Oslo, Norway. Tel: +47 23 10 34 60. Fax: +47 23
10 34 61. E-mail: post@tandf.no
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (USPS permit pending)
is published in March, May, August and November. The 2005
institutional subscription price is $320. Periodicals postage pending
at Champlain, NY, by US Mail Agent IMS of New York, 100 Walnut
Street, Champlain, NY.
US Postmaster: Please send address changes to sWBP, PO Box 1518
Champlain, NY 12919, USA.
Copyright # 2005 Taylor & Francis
All articles are protected by copyright, which covers exclusive rights
to reproduce and distribute the article. No material in this journal may
be reproduced photographically or stored on microfilm, in electronic
databases, video or compact disks etc. without prior written
permission from Taylor & Francis. Special regulations for photocopies
in the USA: Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by
Taylor & Francis for libraries and other users registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), Transactional Reporting Service,
provided the fee of $27 per article is article paid to CCC, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. This authorization does
not include copying for general distribution, promotion, new works,
or resale. In these cases, specific written permission must be obtained
from Taylor & Francis.
Indexed in:
Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI
Alerting Services, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, Current
Contents/Life Sciences, NeuroScience Citation Index
Page 4
Editorial
A continuing success story
Carlos Hojaij, Hans-Ju ¨rgen Mo ¨ller ..........................................................................................................4
Review/Mini-Reviews
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a therapeutic tool in psychiatry
Wim Simons, Michel Dierick ..................................................................................................................6
Antioxidative and steroid systems in neurological and psychiatric disorders
Andreas Johannes Schmidt, Ju ¨ rgen-Christian Krieg, Helmut Vedder ..................................................26
Original Investigations/Summaries of Original Research
Frequency and characteristics of recurrent major depressed patients with unimpaired
executive functions
Kirsten I. Stordal, Astri J. Lundervold, Arnstein Mykletun, Arve Asbjørnsen, Eva Biringer,
Jens Egeland, A˚sa Hammar, Nils Inge Landrø, Atle Roness, Bjørn Rishovd Rund, Kjetil Sundet,
Anders Lund .....................................................................................................................................36
Viewpoints
Problems associated with the classification and diagnosis of psychiatric disorders
Hans-Ju ¨rgen Mo ¨ller ...............................................................................................................................45
Case Reports/Case Series
Citalopram plus reboxetine in treatment-resistant obessive-compulsive disorder
Leonardo F. Fontenelle, Mauro V. Mendlowicz, Euripedes C. Miguel, Marcio Versiani ......................57
Letters to the Editors
Regarding open access to scientific journals
Gustavo A. Delucchi .............................................................................................................................60
Instructions to Authors ........................................................................................................62
Author Disclosure Declaration ........................................................................................63
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
Volume 6, No 1, 2005
Contents
Page 5
EDITORIAL
A continuing success story
In 2004 the WFSBP celebrated 30 years of fruitful
existence. This year the WFSBP is proud to be
celebrating the fifth birthday of its main publication,
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. All
those who have been involved in the production of
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, and
especially the Editorial Board, authors and re-
viewers, have assisted in the achievement of several
milestones over the past five years, including accep-
tance for indexing by both the National Library
of Medicine (Medline) and Thomson ISI. Among
the various exceptional publications in past issues
the internationally accepted WFSBP treatment
guidelines represent one of the highlights. A special
thanks also goes to the company Janssen Cilag
for their financial support during the first four
years, and to Lundbeck, who have committed
themselves to supporting the Journal with an educa-
tional grant. We are now extremely pleased to
announce that The World Journal of Biological
Psychiatry’s next era has begun in partnership with
Taylor & Francis, a leading international academic
publisher.
Taylor & Francis was first founded in 1798 when
Richard Taylor launched the ‘Philosophical Maga-
zine’, one of the first scientific journals to be
produced by an independent company. It was the
start of many close collaborations with scholarly
societies. In 1852, Dr. William Francis, a chemist,
joined Richard Taylor and continued the tradition
of close links between the academic community
and the company. With offices in several countries
including Norway, Sweden, the UK, the USA,
Singapore and Sydney, the Taylor & Francis Group
publishes more than 1000 journals and around
2,800 new books each year, including a substantial
list of medical titles. We are confident that such a
renowned establishment will mean another great
leap forward in the development of our Journal.
The collaboration with Taylor & Francis will bring
a lot of improvements and increased professionalism
for the Journal, whereby many of its well-known
features will continue. The cover will remain un-
changed. Registered WFSBP members will still
receive the Journal as one of the important members’
benefits (all members of national societies of biolo-
gical psychiatry can become registered members
of the WFSBP). The scientific content of the
Journal will continue to be the sole responsibility
of the Editors, without any influence by the pub-
lisher or sponsors. However, we look forward
to many positive, new features, including the follow-
ing:
. Each issue will be bound with a spine detailing
the volume and issue number, to facilitate
identification.
. Within the next year, an internet-based system
for manuscript submission and review will be
introduced, which will help to speed up the
whole process from submission to acceptance.
. The Journal will be available free-of-charge to
registered WFSBP members and Journal sub-
scribers in a member-only area on the WFSBP
website. Non-members/-subscribers will have
access to the abstracts of all papers and the
tables of contents. Non-members will be able to
purchase articles, which will help to increase
revenue for the Journal. In keeping with the
philosophy of the WFSBP, the Journal will be
included in HINARI, a WHO programme that
provides free or very inexpensive access to 2500
of the best medical journals to the world’s
poorest countries.
. Two years after publication, each issue will be
made freely available on the WFSBP website
public area.
. A search function will be introduced on the
Journal website, allowing searches to be per-
formed for individual authors or topics.
. A link will be set up from Pubmed to the
Journal, meaning that papers in The World
Journal of Biological Psychiatry found as a result
of literature searches can be obtained by authors
quickly and easily, which should ultimately
have a positive effect on the impact factor.
This is one more exciting time for The World Journal
of Biological Psychiatry. An impact factor for the
Journal will be available in 2006, making it more
attractive for some special publications and for
colleagues interested in academic careers. We would
therefore like to encourage you to continue to
consider The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
when contemplating where to publish your work.
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2005; 6(1): 4?/5
ISSN 1562-2975 print/ISSN 1814-1412 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15622970510029920
Page 6
We also ask you to convey our enthusiasm to
colleagues and members of your research group
and to extend to them our invitation to publish the
results of their investigations in The World Journal of
Biological Psychiatry.
Carlos Hojaij
Associate Editor
President, WFSBP
Hans-Ju ¨rgen Mo ¨ller
Chief Editor
Past President, WFSBP
Correspondence:
Prof. Hans-Ju ¨rgen Mo ¨ller
Department of Psychiatry
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Nussbaumstr. 7
80336 Munich
Germany
Tel: ? /49 89 5160 5501
Fax: ? /49 89 5160 5522
E-mail: hans-juergen.moeller@med.uni-muenchen.de
Editorial
5
Page 7
REVIEW
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a therapeutic tool in psychiatry
WIM SIMONS1& MICHEL DIERICK2
1University Centre St. Jozef, Catholic University of Leuven, Kortenberg, Belgium,2Psychiatric Hospital St. Camillus, Gent
(Sint-Denijs-Westrem), Belgium
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a patient-friendly stimulation technique of the brain with interesting
perspectives. In clinical psychiatry, limited data are available on activity in psychosis and anxiety, but much research has
been done in depression. Major concerns on published papers are the inconsistency of used parameter settings, the restraint
numbers of patients in randomised trials, the lack of real sham controlled studies and the quasi inexistent reproducibility of
results. The most stringent meta-analysis of TMS in affective disorders found a modest, statistically significant
antidepressant effect after 2 weeks of daily treatment of high frequency repetitive left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
stimulation. Although most results are rather weak and not convincing enough to promote TMS as evidence-based
antidepressive therapy, they show a measurable action that should not be ignored. Preclinical and clinical effects were
observed analysing heterogeneous data, and results comparing TMS to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in affective
disorders are encouraging. Efforts should continue with emphasis on increasing homogeneity and reproducibility in data.
Further refinement of stimulation parameters should be established, so that new and large double-blind, long-term, sham-
controlled trials can bring us to better understanding and standardising TMS procedure, finally leading to definitive
conclusions about its efficacy in psychiatry.
Key words: Transcranial magnetic stimulation, biological psychiatry, depressive disorder
Introduction
In TMS, a machine with a large condenser is used,
connected to an electric isolated spool. The electro-
static energy in the capacitator is discharged and
transformed into magnetic energy in the spool those
functions as stimulation electrode. When fast oscil-
lating magnetic fields are applied, electrical energy is
transported through the brain, resulting in changes
in neuronal activity. This current (12?/20 mA/cm2) is
of the same size-order as the one used in conven-
tional electric brain stimulations (Epstein 1990;
Sackeim 1994; Nobler et al. 2000; Wagner et al.
2004). Compared with the latter, during TMS no
energy is lost in resistance of haired skin, soft tissues
and the skull. Less stimulation energy is needed,
resulting in less pain. Furthermore, only the brain
region within reach of the magnetic field activity
(1.5?/2 cm from the surface of the induction spool) is
directly affected. Generalised motor activation and
seizures, normally needing anaesthesia, therefore
can be avoided (George et al. 1999).
Barker et al. at the University of Sheffield devel-
oped the first compact magnetic stimulator in 1985.
In the same year, Merton in London carried out the
first sessions of transcranial motor cortical magnetic
stimulation (Barker et al. 1985; Pascual-Leone et al.
1997; George and Belmaker 2000). Initially ‘single-
pulse’ stimulators were used, with a limited range of
stimulation capacity. Current stimulators can pro-
duce very high intensities and multiple impulses in a
high tempo (trains) with a short interval, resulting in
repetitive TMS (rTMS) (Pascual-Leone et al. 1997;
George and Belmaker 2000).
TMS was at the beginning a neurological research
tool and used in the exploration of motor functions
and brain mapping. Later, single pulse and rTMS
proved to be useful in diagnostics and therapy
(spinal and cranial neurosurgery, revalidation of
central and peripheral motor dysfunctions, explora-
tion hemispherical dominance).
In psychiatry rTMS is used for the study of higher
cortical functions (cognition, emotion, behaviour)
and in the therapy of major clinical syndromes, such
Correspondence: Michel Dierick, Psychiatric Hospital St. Camillus, Beukenlaan 20, B-9051 Gent (Sint-Denijs-Westrem), Belgium.
Tel: ? /32 92 225894. Fax: ? /32 92 219445. E-mail: michel.dierick@ugent.be
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2005; 6(1): 6?/25
(Received 1 December 2003; accepted 27 September 2004)
ISSN 1562-2975 print/ISSN 1814-1412 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15622970510029812
Page 8
as psychosis, anxiety and principally affective dis-
orders. The first antidepressant TMS study dates
from more than a decade ago (Hoflich et al. 1993).
Although early studies showed encouraging results, a
strong and consistent evidence of antidepressive
activity has not been proven. In the past years,
several meta-analyses have been published. Some
countries in the world have recognised TMS as an
official antidepressive therapy (e.g., Canada and
Israel), others, like the USA, are waiting for further
evidence.
This article will discuss the TMS procedure and
its possible underlying working mechanisms. It
overviews the literature concerning its therapeutic
potentials in psychiatry as well as safety and proce-
dural refinement matters.
Standard procedure TMS in psychiatry
During a session of TMS the subject, awake and
alert, is placed in a chair in most cases. The subject
receives two earplugs to minimise the impact of the
disturbing ‘clicking’ noise during the stimulation.
The stimulation coil, in most recent studies figure-
eight shaped, is placed over the skull. The stimula-
tion site and the amount of needed stimulation
energy are determined at the beginning of each
session (Ziemann and Hallet 2000). For most
psychiatric trials, this is done by determining the
individual motor threshold (MT) for the abductor
pollicis brevis (APB) muscle of the right thumb. The
motor threshold is the lowest magnetic intensity
necessary for one TMS pulse to provoke an electro-
myographicdetectablemotor
(MEP) of a defined minimal size (e.g., 50 mV) in
this muscle in 50% of at least five measurements
(George et al. 1998; Pascual-Leone et al. 2002).
From the optimal position for stimulating APB, the
coil is shifted carefully, keeping angulation, tilting
and direction, to a predefined standardised stimula-
tion site. In depression the target place to stimulate
is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPF), situ-
ated about 5 cm forward (rostral) and on a parallel
to the midline (Grunhaus et al. 2000; Janicak et al.
2002; Grunhaus et al. 2003). The intensity of the
stimuli that will be applied is fixed at a certain
percentage of the energy that was needed to achieve
MT.
In some diagnostic and many of the research
conditions single pulse TMS is applied, but in
most clinical trials each session consists of sequential
trains of repetitive magnetic field pulses at a certain
frequency (1?/20 Hz). Each train lasts several sec-
onds and between two of them there is a constant
intertrain interval of some seconds as well. A variety
of treatment durations and numbers of sessions have
evoked potential
been studied, but the majority of clinical studies
applied a treatment schedule of one session a day, 5
days a week, for one or more following weeks.
How TMS influences neuronal functioning
TMS creates fast oscillating magnetic fields. Chan-
ging magnetic fields affecting the cortex over a short
time period can induce depolarisation (George et al.
1996a). The magnetic fields caused by TMS are
situated perpendicular on the brain surface. The
cortical interneurons, in an orthogonal position to
the magnetic field, are probably more influenced
than the cortical brain cells themselves. The oscilla-
tion speed in the induction spool and in the induced
currents plays an important role in the efficacy of the
TMS technique. To depolarise neurons, the current
in the induction spool should start, stop, and reverse
within 9 /300 ms (Barker et al. 2002). This means
that a stimulation frequency higher than 1 Hz is
needed to achieve neuronal activation. Lower fre-
quencies have showed to suppress neuronal activity.
Currently it is accepted that high frequency rTMS
(? /1 Hz) causes immediate neuronal excitation,
whereas low frequency rTMS (5 /1 Hz) causes im-
mediate neuronal inhibition. Underlying possible
mechanisms are still subject of preclinical research
(Fitzgerald et al. 2002; George et al. 2002, 2003).
Furthermore, it may be presumed that high fre-
quency rTMS, enhancing neuronal excitability, can
induce long-term potentialisation (LTP) intersynap-
tic transmission. Analogously low frequency rTMS
would cause long-term depression (LTD). This
hypothesis seems validated for motor cortex neurons
in studies applying rTMS to a single neuron in
cultures, by findings in rats and by some human in
vivo studies as well (Chen et al. 1997a; Stanton and
Sejnowsky 1989; Bear 1999; Malenka and Nicoll
1999; Wu et al. 2000; Iyer et al. 2003; Modugno et
al. 2003; Ogiue-Ikeda et al. 2003). However, as
numerous unpublished studies failed to reproduce
these findings (George et al. 2002), the exact
mechanism of modification of inhibitory and excita-
tory circuits remains uncertain. Research using
paired pulse TMS may bring more clarity. In this
method, a subthreshold stimulus precedes a supra-
threshold stimulus. The response to this stimulation
method may be increased (facilitation, probably
glutaminergic) or decreased (inhibition, probably
through two different GABA-ergic circuits) depend-
ing on the interstimulus interval (Fitzgerald et al.
2002; George et al. 2003).
Besides the oscillation speed, other factors deter-
mine the induced current: the current strength in the
induction spool and the number of windings in the
electrode (George et al. 1996a, 1998).
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapeutic tool in psychiatry
7
Page 9
The shape of the created magnetic field deter-
mines which part of the brain under the spool is
reached, within margins of 1.5?/2 cm of the probe.
The magnetic field shape itself is dependent on the
shape of this stimulation electrode (George et al.
1996, 1998, 1999). Initially spools had a circular
diameter (80?/100 mm), the most efficient shape for
stimulation motor cortex. The induced current in
the brain is circular and parallel to the plane of the
spool, but in reversed direction. The strongest
current circuits are located just below the spool
and they become exponentially weaker the more
they are distant from the centre of the round spool.
Over the past few years, new electrodes have been
introduced. The so-called figure-eight-shaped elec-
trode consists of two metal spiral wires placed next
to each other. The maximum of induced current is
created in the middle of the electrode, where the
both wires converge. This electrode is especially
useful for stimulation of more precise and smaller
determined brain zones (as is the case of brain
mapping and antidepressant TMS research).
TMS can only directly influence the neurons
within reach of the magnetic field. Deeper situated
neurons probably can become activated indirectly
viacorticalinterconnections
cortical?/subcortical loops. Functional neuro-ima-
ging studies, hormonal changes and changes in brain
metabolism after TMS support this hypothesis
(Alexander et al. 1986; George et al. 1996b; Bohn-
ing et al. 1999; Nobler et al. 2000; George et al.
2002, 2003).
andredundant
Effect on higher cortical circuits and functions
TMS induces generalised depolarisation in the brain
regions within its reach (George et al. 1996a).
Depolarisation in the motor cortex results in a
movement. Depolarisation in other cortical regions
should result in excitation or inhibition (dependent
on the frequency), reflected in changes in higher
cortical functions (e.g., depolarisation of the pre-
frontal cortex should result in change in behaviour
or mood).
Effects on memory and cognition
Much of the data concerning cognition comes from
clinical antidepressant rTMS trials measuring cog-
nitive side effects. These will be discussed later.
Earlier cognition studies mainly focused on short-
term interference of TMS with memory and recall
domains, language and speech-related functions and
visual tasks. There were both transient disruption
and enhancement of functioning, dependent on the
stimulation parameters (Fitzgerald 2002). Preclini-
cal studies using paired pulse stimulation are valu-
able in unravelling the exact mechanisms behind
those observations (Robertson et al. 2003; Calvo-
Merino and Haggard 2004). Recently, improve-
ments on the digit symbol substitution test and
verbal fluency have been observed after stimulation
in healthy volunteers, as well as improvements in
cognitive flexibility and conceptual tracking in de-
pressed patients (Jenkins et al. 2002; Moser et al.
2002).
Effects on reality testing
Diverse pathophysiological theories explain symp-
toms of psychosis. Hypo- or hyperfunctioning in
different brain areas are thought to result in a
dysfunction of especially the fronto-subcortical loops
and their connections with deeper grey nuclei.
Current TMS devices cannot produce a magnetic
penetration power to reach these brain areas directly.
Chances of influencing a psychotic process as a
whole with TMS thus are small (Klein et al. 1999;
McNamara et al. 2001).
Effects on mood regulation
Most mood researchers believe in the concept of a
complex mood regulating system, consisting out of
several parallel networks including the prefrontal
cortex, the limbic structures and the striatum.
Among these, the prefrontal cortex is the only region
in reach of rTMS. TMS aimed at the prefrontal
cortex therefore can be expected to influence mood
(George 1994; George et al. 1994a,b, 1995a,b,
1996a, 1997a, 1998; Ketter et al. 1996; Mayberg
et al. 1999; Kimbrell et al. 2002; Schlaepfer et al.
2003).
Animal TMS studies provide support to this
hypothesis. Rodent rTMS studies have reported
antidepressant-like behavioural and neurochemical
effects, such as enhancement of apomorphine-in-
duced stereotypy and reduction of immobility in the
Porsolt swim test (Fleischmann et al. 1996; Tsut-
sumi et al. 2002). Enhanced forebrain serotonin
output and modulation of the extracellular serotonin
and its receptor functions have been observed
following rTMS administration in rats (Ben-Sachar
et al. 1999; Juckel et al. 1999; Kole et al. 1999;
Kanno et al. 2004a). Extra cellular levels of dopa-
mine and glutamate in the nucleus accumbens ?/ a
major region implicated in reward circuitry and
depressive disorders ?/ were increased after acute
TMS over rat and monkey frontal cortex (Zangen
and Hyodo 2002; Kanno et al. 2004b; Ohnishi et al.
2004). Repetitive TMS has also induced electro-
convulsive shock-likebiochemicalandgenetic
8
W . Simons & M. Dierick
Page 10
changes in animals: there were similar changes in
brain monoamine neurotransmission and enhance-
ments of c-fos in parietal cortex and hippocampus
(Hausmann et al. 2001; Pridmore et al. 2001;
George et al. 2002). However, these findings were
not always reproducible and often confounded by
methodological problems (Lisanby and Belmaker
2000). Most of the studies applied stimulation of the
whole brain of small animals, which makes it
difficult to extrapolate findings to what is happening
during human focal TMS (Weissman et al. 1992;
Padberg and Mo ¨ller 2003).
Nevertheless, some imaging studies in humans
reported findings similar to those in animals and in
accordance to most accepted mood regulation hy-
potheses. For example, dopamine release in the
ipsilateral caudate nucleus after left-sided prefrontal
TMS has been observed (Strafella et al. 2001,
2003). This observation can be linked to the recent
finding that the facilitation of mesolimbic or nigros-
triatal dopamine neurotransmission could be the
mechanism of action behind treatment efficacy in
treatment refractorydepressed
2003).
Also human neuro-endocrine research adds sup-
port to the possibility of TMS influencing mood. In
depressed patients, a disinhibition of the limbic?/
hypothalamic?/pituitary?/adrenocortical
axis is well documented. Normalisation of its func-
tion has been associated with clinical response to
classical antidepressant therapy. Similar changes
were measured in studies applying rTMS (George
et al. 1996b; Cohrs et al. 1998; Pridmore 1999; Reid
and Pridmore 1999; Szuba et al. 2000, 2001;
Pridmore et al. 2001; Burt et al. 2002; Padberg et
al. 2002a; Padberg and Mo ¨ller 2003; Zwanzger et al.
2003).
Next to these preclinical studies, a few studies
investigated the clinical effect of prefrontal rTMS on
mood in normal volunteers (Schlaepfer et al. 2003).
Some show transient brief and discrete mood- lifting
or -lowering changes with stimulation of the left
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (left DLPF) or right
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (right DLPF) (George
et al. 1996b; Pascual-Leone et al. 1996; Dearing et
al. 1997). This raises an important mood issue
relevant to TMS: laterality of the brain. According
to the laterality hypothesis of mood, the left hemi-
sphere would be responsible for positive emotions
while the right hemisphere would evoke negative
emotions (Padberg and Mo ¨ller 2003). This could
explain why dysfunctions in the left orbitofrontal and
prefrontal cortex were noted in depressed patients,
ischemic lesions in the left prefrontal cortex also
resulted more often in post-stroke depression than
right-sided lesions and anatomical and functional
patients (Inoue
(LHPA)
imaging (CAT, MR, SPECT and PET) studies in
primary and secondary depressions show abnormal-
ities in the left prefrontal cortex. Some TMS studies
in healthy subjects also support this laterality hy-
pothesis. One study using low frequency rTMS at
130% MT in female subjects showed right-sided
stimulation to result in selective attention towards
angry faces in a pictorial emotional stroop task,
whereas left-sided identical stimulation produced
selective attention away from them (d’Alfonso et
al. 2000). In other studies mood states varied from
reported feelings of frustration, sadness and even
spontaneous weeping after right DLPF TMS to
feelings of happiness after left DLPF TMS. There
were some cases of short-lasting hypomania after left
DLPF rTMS in healthy human volunteers (Nedjat
and Folkerts 1999). Recent studies, however, failed
to replicate lateralised effects of prefrontal rTMS on
mood (Mosimann et al. 2000; Padberg and Mo ¨ller
2003). For example, lower frequencies (1 Hz),
supposed to suppress brain excitability, applied to
the right DLPF did not induce mood changes in 19
healthy volunteers (Jenkins et al. 2002). Differences
in used TMS parameter settings can partly explain
these incongruous results.
Based on much of these data, one of the pioneers
in the psychiatric TMS research field, M. George,
postulated the theory that chronic, frequent, sub-
convulsive TMS of the prefrontal cortex over several
weeks may initiate a therapeutic cascade of events
both in the prefrontal cortex and in connected limbic
regions, thereby alleviating depression. Not only
clinical trials but also recent imaging studies confirm
this hypothesis (George et al. 2002). Devices are
being developed that allow direct functional imaging
(fMRI, PET) of TMS effects (Bohning et al. 2003;
George et al. 2003; Neggers et al. 2004). Serial scans
in depressed patients undergoing high frequency
rTMS (at 20 Hz) over the left prefrontal cortex
showed increased activity in the rostral anterior
cingulate and other limbic regions. Low frequency
left prefrontal rTMS (at 1 Hz) seemed to produce
more circumscribed decreases in brain activity
(Teneback et al. 1999; Paus et al. 2001; Strafella et
al. 2001; Mitchel 2002; Shajahan et al. 2002). In
another study with healthy volunteers, where reduc-
tion in self-reported positive affect and vitality were
noted after 10-Hz rTMS over the left mid-dorso-
lateral frontal cortex (MDLFC), changes in blood
flow were seen in left MDLFC and in a number
of affect-relevant brain regions, including the peri-
genual anterior cingulate gyrus, insula, thalamus,
parahippocampal gyrus,
(Barrett et al. 2004). Clinical studies registering
self-rated mood assessments showed discrete daily
progressions consistent with functional imaging data
andcaudate nucleus
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapeutic tool in psychiatry
9
Page 11
showing repeated subtle changes in mood-regulating
circuits, suggesting that during each treatment ses-
sion, the mood-regulating circuit is being activated
and slightly normalised. The predictive values of
these subtle changes remain unclear, but they can
help to refine stimulation parameters more accu-
rately (Szuba et al. 1999; Nahas et al. 2003).
Functional imaging studies also bring up new
elements to refine the above-stated hypothesis. For
example, prefrontal TMS at 80% MT produces
much less local and remote blood flow changes than
does 120% MT TMS, suggesting the need of a
suprathreshold stimulus (Nahas et al. 2001a). An-
other important issue was revealed with PET scans,
[18F]fluorodeoxyglucosis
scans: baseline brain activity state is an outcome
factor for high frequency rTMS treatment in depres-
sion. This means that a subgroup of depressive
patients with global or focal basal hypometabolism
would be more susceptible for successful treatment
than others (Nadeau et al. 2002). Again these
statements need to be interpreted with caution, as
one SPECT study found different correlations
between recovery from depression and perfusion
rates in different brain regions (negative in limbic
structures, positive in several neocortical areas)
(Mottaghy et al. 2002).
and HMPAOSPECT
Clinical applications in psychiatry
Most clinical psychiatric TMS research has been
focusing on the hypothesised antidepressant efficacy.
Possible beneficial effects in other psychiatric dis-
orders have been investigated less extensively in
some recent studies.
Depression
The first (open) studies applied single-pulse TMS
with a big open or circular stimulation electrode,
placed on the vertex, stimulating often different
brain areas, at frequencies less than 0.3 Hz (Schlaep-
fer et al. 2003). Later the technique changed and
rTMS was mostly used. Since 1995, the figure-of-
eight-shaped stimulation coil, introduced by George
and co-workers, is more standard. It improves
penetration and focality of the magnetic field com-
pared to the circular coil (Pridmore et al. 2001).
Some of the initial (open) rTMS clinical trials
found an antidepressant effect of high frequency
rTMS (10?/20 Hz) over the left dorsolateral pre-
frontal cortex (George et al. 1995a; Epstein et al.
1998; Figiel et al. 1998; Pridmore et al. 1998).
Other studies used stimulation reversed parameters,
namely at a low frequency (1 Hz) and over the right
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, with a circular open
stimulation coil. Both methods seemed safe and
induced antidepressant activity (Feinsod et al.
1998). Later, a growing number of double-blind
and sham-controlled studies confirmed those pre-
liminary findings (Pascual-Leone
George et al. 1997b; Klein et al. 1999; Tormos et
al. 1999; Schlaepfer et al. 2003), adding support to
the above-discussed laterality hypothesis in mood
regulation. High frequency rTMS over the left
DLPF (left prefrontal rTMS) could be effective via
activation, low frequency stimulation over the right
DLPF (right prefrontal rTMS) via local inhibition of
the underlying cortical circuits (Pascual-Leone et al.
1994; Chen et al. 1997a; Speer et al. 2000;
Fitzgerald et al. 2002).
etal.1996;
Meta-analyses. All studies between the late 1990s
and 2002 achieving a certain minimum of metho-
dological quality (selection made of maximum 15
trials) were included in five independent meta-
analyses (Holtzheimer et al. 2001; McNamara et
al. 2001; Burt et al. 2002; Kozel and George 2002;
Martin et al. 2003a,c). The overall conclusion seems
to point out an antidepressant efficacy by daily
stimulation over the left DLPF cortex with middle-
high stimulation frequency (5 /20 Hz) at intensities
just above or below MT. Reported effects take
several weeks to build up and are temporarily, but
significantly greater than those achieved with sham
stimulation (Loo et al. 1999). Not much data are
available concerning follow-up: only information
concerning five patients has been reported (Holtz-
heimer et al. 2001; McNamara et al. 2001).
Looking more into detail, a discrepancy exists
between results and conclusions of different meta-
analyses. Some characteristics of most clinical trials
included in the meta-analyses can be found in Table
I. As shown, study material differs substantially with
respect to sample size, patient description, stimula-
tion parameters and study design, complicating
adequate comparison and evaluation (Holtzheimer
et al. 2001; Martin et al. 2003c; Padberg and Mo ¨ller
2003). The Cochrane analysers are especially cau-
tious (Martin et al. 2003a). They rigorously chose to
separate analyses of the four main rTMS conditions
(combinations of high or low frequency, with right or
left prefrontal stimulation), considering them each
as total different treatment modalities. This results
in a strong reduction of total numbers of included
patients for each condition, limiting possibilities to
demonstrate significant differences between sham
and active rTMS (Padberg and Mo ¨ller 2003).
The small sample sizes (between six and 70
patients for the Cochrane meta-analysis) make it
impossible to define the subgroups of patients who
would benefit best from this treatment (McNamara
10
W . Simons & M. Dierick
Page 12
Table I. Included studies in the Cochrane analysis (Martin et al. 2003a,c; Kozel and George 2002).
George
et al.
1997b
Kimbrell
et al.
1999
Loo
et al.
1999
Padberg
et al.
1999
Avery
et al.
1999
Klein
et al.
1999
Berman
et al.
2000
Eschweiler
et al. 2000
Garcia- Toro
et al. 2001a
Garcia- Toro
et al. 2001b
George
et al.
2000a
Manes
et al.
2001
Szuba
et al.
2001
Study design
Crossover
Crossover
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Crossover
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Number of patients
12
13
18
18
6
70
20
10
35
22
30
20
14
Medication resistant
No
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
NA
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Medication free
9/12
9/13
No
1/6
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
patients
patients
patients
DLPF cortex laterality
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Sham coil orientation
458
458
458
908
458
908
458
908
908
908
458
NA
NA
Intensity (% MT)
80
80
110
90
80
110
80
90
90
90
100
80
100
Stimulation
20
1
10
0.3
10
1
20
10
20
20
20
20
10
frequency (Hertz)
20
10
5
Number of daily
800
800
1500
250
1000
120
800
2000
1200
1200
1600
800
1000
pulses
800
250
16000
Train duration
2
2
5
NA
5
60
2
10
2
2
2: 20
2
5
8: 5
Trains per session
20
20
30
NA
20
2
20
20
30
30
40
20
20
Number of sessions
10
10
20
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
rTMS response
1/12
0/13
0/9
0/6
¼
17/35
1/10
NA
5/17
4/11
3/10
3/10
NA
(HDRS reduction? /
50%)
1/10
0/6
6/10
SHAM response
0/12
0/3
0/9
0/6
0/2
8/32
0/10
NA
1/18
3/11
0/10
3/10
NA
(HDRS reduction? /
50%)
0/3
0/6
0/10
Mean decrease HDRS
Raw: in rTMS
4.17
? /1.15
4.89
1.7
10.5
12.1
14
5.2
7.05
11.6
7.8
NA
NA
6.2
5.2
12.8
Raw: in SHAM
? /3.38
0.33
4.78
? /1.30
4.50
5.60
0.20
? /1.90
1.77
12.1
4.80
NA
NA
%: in rTMS
14%
? /4%
23%
6%
49%
47%
38%
23%
26%
45.2%
26%
NA
NA
20%
19%
49%
%: in SHAM
? /16%
1%
19%
? /6%
23%
22%
1%
? /9%
7%
45.2%
20%
NA
NA
Effect size Hedges
1.37
0.32
? /0.18
0.44
0.60
0.74
1.05
0.21
1.07
0.14
0.65
0.30
NA
Variance
0.34
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.88
0.25
0.20
0.34
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.20
NA
DLPF, dorsolateral prefrontal; MT, motor threshold; rTMS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapeutic tool in psychiatry
11
Page 13
et al. 2001). In most studies, patients continued
taking antidepressant treatment. Repetitive TMS
was in these cases may be only an augmentation
strategy (Burt et al. 2002). Therapy-resistant pa-
tients were selected, except in one trial where less
severely depressed patients were studied. The results
of this one study were the most promising of all
included trials: a response rate of 49% (Klein et al.
1999). This suggests that less severely depressed
patients may benefit more from this treatment than
others. There was, however, a large response rate in
the sham population as well, raising some doubts
about methodological biases in this trial (Holtzhei-
mer et al. 2001).
One of the methodological difficulties complicat-
ing adequate interpretation of trials concerns the
placebo or sham condition (Janicak et al. 2002). The
creation of an ideal sham coil poses a problem: how
can a device induce the same visual and subjective
sensory experiences at the stimulation site and
produce similar acoustic artefact, time locked to
the scalp sensation, in absence of this magnetic field?
Because of the lack of such an electrode design, most
clinical research found a solution in altering the
orientation sense of the same coil used in active
treatment condition. In most cases, the figure-eight-
shaped electrode is held at an inclination of 45 or 908
towards the skull. Loo et al. (1999), however, found
that such sham stimulation could induce a firm
antidepressant result. In another study, the same
authors examined seven different ‘‘sham’’ figure-
eight coil positions in nine healthy subjects. None of
these positions met the criteria for an ideal sham,
because coil inclinations associated with a better
scalp sensation were also more likely to measurably
stimulate the cortex (Loo et al. 2000). Concluding,
it can be stated that the 45 or 908 inclination
probably offers the best trade-off between effective
blinding and truly inactive stimulation (Loo et al.
2000; McNamara et al. 2001, Fitzgerald et al.
2002). The use of a ‘‘real’’ sham coil offers the
only solution to the above-discussed problem. In-
vestigations to develop such a coil are in progress
(McNamara et al. 2001).
Another remark concerns the problem of adequate
blinding in treatment designs. When sham and
treatment design are not completely similar, the
professional in charge of applying the technique
must know whether a patient belongs to the treat-
ment or control group. The interaction of the
patients with the researchers in such a single-blinded
condition could providie different levels of motiva-
tion to both participants (Martin et al. 2003a).
The choice of depression evaluation scales can
also influence the results. Most studies used a
version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
(HDRS) and/or the Beck Depression Inventory
(BDI) scores. The Cochrane reviewers pointed out
that the comparison of data through different scales
could affect internal validity. They advise including
additional, more objective outcome measures: hos-
pital discharges, treatment-free period, readmission
rates, period of inability to work (Martin et al.
2003a,c).
Recent trials. Since the publication of the latest meta-
analysis, new trials have been published. One study,
using the currently most successful stimulation de-
sign, failed to replicate significant antidepressant
effect, but noted for patients with a better response a
shorter duration of the current depressive episode
(Holtzheimer et al. 2004). Some authors tried lower
(subthreshold) stimulation intensity to achieve anti-
depressant efficacy. Boutros et al. (2002) found no
significant difference applying high frequency rTMS
(20 Hz) at 80% MT. Padberg et al. (2002b) com-
pared 90%MT to 100%MT in high frequency
rTMS (10 Hz) and found less antidepressant effect
with the lower intensity. These findings support the
statement that the antidepressant effect of rTMS
significantly increases with stimulation intensity
(Padberg et al. 2002b).
The homogeneity in efficacy of the high frequency
stimulation range was also subject to additional
research. Comparison of 5, 10 and 20 Hz rTMS
showed no differences in HDRS reductions in one
study, but the stimulation intensity used was low
(80% MT) (Shajahan et al. 2002). Another trial
using 5 Hz left prefrontal rTMS at 110% MT in 23
bipolar patients did not show therapeutic differences
compared to sham (Nahas et al. 2003).
Other recent trials focused on the laterality
hypothesis using high frequency left prefrontal
rTMS as well as low frequency right prefrontal
rTMS. Most researchers found indeed a similar
significant antidepressant effect compared to sham,
lacking any differences between the two described
conditions (Conca et al. 2002; Hoppner et al. 2003;
Kauffmann et al. 2004). One author tried to apply
bilateral prefrontal rTMS, failing to show differences
in mood improvements after 3 weeks (Loo et al.
2003a). The importance of laterality and stimulation
frequency and especially the correct combination of
both factors seems to be crucial. The underlying
working mechanisms are still unknown.
Fitzgerald et al. (2003) focused on total amount of
administered pulses and total duration of treatment.
They hypothesised that response would increase
with a longer period of stimulation, due to an
accumulated dose (number of pulses) or to longer
treatment duration. They carried out a 4-week
double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial
12
W . Simons & M. Dierick
Page 14
with 60 patients. There was only a significant
antidepressant effect after 4 weeks but both in low
and high frequency rTMS, with a similar magnitude,
despite the fact that low frequency rTMS consisted
of considerably fewer pulses per session. If the
number of accumulated pulses is pivotal, it can be
hypothesised that 1-Hz stimulation with an equal
number of pulses as in the high frequency rTMS
condition, would have produced better results. Due
to this and taking into account safety and toler-
ability, low frequency rTMS may prove to be a first-
line rTMS strategy in depression. Crossover to high
frequency rTMS in non-responders could be the
following step in treatment strategy (Fitzgerald et al.
2003).
How to optimise rTMS antidepressant properties. Anti-
depressant effects of rTMS in trials depend among
others on patient characteristics, study designs and
stimulation parameters (Table II). Concerning pa-
tient characteristics, no large or systematically re-
plicated data is available, but it seems that younger
patients, not therapy-resistant and not psychotic,
without prefrontal cortical atrophy but with somatic
signs of anxiety would benefit best from rTMS
(Padberg and Mo ¨ller 2003). Some consensus has
emerged regarding therapeutic settings but the ideal
parameter combination is still open to debate.
The shape and size of the stimulation electrode is
one of the important topics. The currently most used
figure-of-eight coil has the advantage to produce a
cone-shaped volume of concentrated magnetic field,
narrowing and increasing in strength towards the
apex. It cannot, however, create a remote isolated
spot with high intensity surrounded by areas of lower
intensity. This would be interesting because deeper
situated brain regions (e.g., the limbic system) could
then be targeted, without affecting surrounding
areas responsible for undesired side effects (Bohning
2000). To achieve this, the diameter of coils should
be reduced. However, the smaller the coil, the
greater the stimulation intensity required to produce
similar depth of penetration (Fitzgerald et al. 2002).
Moreover, heating (and the risk of scalp burns) is
augmented with decrease of electrode diameter
(Jalinous 2002; Ruohonen and Ilmoniemi 2002).
The stimulation point is a parameter that deter-
mines if prefrontal cortex is efficiently stimulated. In
most studies, the left hemisphere was stimulated,
and a rule-based algorithm, which was discussed
previously, was used to find the prefrontal cortex.
This standardised method ignores anatomical brain
differences and head sizes (George et al. 2002;
Grunhaus et al. 2003). In one imaging study, only
seven out of the 22 subjects had the coil placed
exactly above the intended brain area. It appeared
that the measure at 5 cm rostral to the MT point
could be too short to target this area (Herwig et al.
2001a). It remains an unanswered question if these
subtle differences are responsible for significant
differences in therapeutic effects. A better coil site
localisation would be possible with MRI guidance
(Grunhaus et al. 2003; Neggers et al. 2004). Several
groups (Herwig et al. 2001b; Neggers et al. 2004)
have developed such a neuro-navigational approach.
Recently, a first clinical double-blind, randomised
trial using this stereotactic coil-navigation was pub-
lished (Herwig et al. 2003).
Another essential parameter is the stimulation
intensity. It is based on the individual motor thresh-
old, as discussed above. Looking at the existing data,
an intensity of at least 80% MT and higher inten-
sities (90?/110% MT) may produce the most robust
effects. Using the same stimulation power to activate
prefrontal neurons as needed for motor neuron cells
in the motor cortex (MT) can result in inappropriate
dosing (Dolberg et al. 2002). It ignores the fact that
higher intensities are perhaps needed to reach the
prefrontal cortex than the motor cortex. This is
especially of concern in elderly patients (with pre-
frontal atrophy), in whom coil?/cortex distance
increases (Kozel et al. 2000; McConnell et al.
2001; Mosimann et al. 2002; Padberg et al. 2002b;
Grunhaus et al. 2003). Some authors, however,
found that there may be an association between the
excitability of the prefrontal and motor cortex,
Table II. Parameters (patient, study design and stimulation design related) which can affect results of TMS.
Patient characteristicsStimulation parameters Study design factors
Treatment-resistance
Age
Concurrent medication
Type and severity of depression
Right/left handedness
Onset/duration current episode
Scalp-cortical distance
In- or out patient
Psychotic symptoms
Machine/coil type
Location of stimulation site
Intensity
Total number of TMS pulses:
Frequency of stimulation (20, 5, 1 Hz)
Train duration
Number of trains
Number of sessions (duration)
Intertrain interval
Intersession interval
Sham parameters (45/908)
Blindedness
Crossover versus parallel-groups
Randomisation procedures
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapeutic tool in psychiatry
13
Page 15
suggesting that MT determination could be pre-
served (Kahkonen et al. 2004). An alternative to the
motor measure is to calculate the dose based on a
formula which takes into account the individual
distance from scalp to prefrontal cortex (measured
with MRI) and the exponential drop in magnetic
field strength with increasing distance from the coil
(Bohning et al. 2000; Kozel et al. 2000; Nobler et al.
2000; McConnell et al. 2001).
The influence of different stimulation frequencies
(1?/20 Hz) is closely related to laterality in brain
mood systems, as discussed above. Most trials point
to the direction of an antidepressant effect from left
prefrontal high frequency and from right prefrontal
low frequency rTMS, but some contrasting observa-
tions have also been found (Holtzheimer et al. 2001;
Burt et al. 2002). Functional imaging, such as
SPECT, can help to discover the underlying me-
chanisms of different stimulation frequencies and
laterality (Loo et al. 2003b).
Variable amounts of rTMS pulses per session have
been administered in clinical trials. The most
beneficial effects were found with 1200?/1600 sti-
muli a day (George et al. 1997b; Fitzgerald et al.
2002). The total number of pulses depends on
frequencies, train durations and number of trains
(Table I).
The intertrain interval is an important safety
factor. Seizures have been reported with intervals
below a certain duration. It has been suggested that
at 20 Hz stimulation at 100% MT, intertrain interval
duration should last at minimum 5 s and certainly
not become lower than 1.2 s (Chen et al. 1997b;
Fitzgerald et al. 2002). If intensity exceeds 110% of
MTor frequencies 20?/25 Hz, it is advised to respect
a minimum of 60 s. A general rule proposed by
George et al. suggests an intertrain interval as long as
the stimulation period (Chen et al. 1997b; Fitzgerald
et al. 2002; George et al. 2002; Pasucal-Leone et al.
2002).
Finally, duration of treatment and session fre-
quency are also important influencing factors.
Emerging data suggests that therapeutic effects of
rTMS take several weeks to build up, whereas most
published studies only studied effects concerning 1
or 2 weeks (George et al. 2002). Regular treatment
regimens consisted of five sessions a week, one
session daily, mostly during two following weeks
(Pridmore et al. 2001). Obviously, the matter of
maintenance therapy remains unsolved as well.
Schule et al. (2003) followed some patients taking
antidepressant medication as maintenance therapy
following rTMS. Their results suggested that anti-
depressant pharmacotherapy is able to further im-
prove the clinical response to rTMS and that
responders to rTMS monotherapy should receive
subsequent psychopharmacological treatment with-
out interruption in order to avoid a deterioration of
symptoms. The sparse data of seven patients who
underwent magnetic stimulation maintenance ther-
apy (1 session per week) for about 25 weeks showed
three patients without relapse after 1 year (George et
al. 2002).
Comparing rTMS to ECT. Basic research showed that
rTMS and ECT produce some similar biochemical
and neurophysiological changes (Pridmore et al.
2001; Hausmann et al. 2001; George et al. 2002;
Bolwig 2003). Recent work focused on clinical
results in ECT versus rTMS treatment groups
(Table III). Five clinical trials and one study
combining one ECT session with four TMS session
a week have been published. One other study
presented follow-up data (Grunhaus et al. 2000;
Pridmore et al. 2000a,b; Dannon et al. 2002;
Grunhaus et al. 2003; O’Connor et al. 2003). The
results in these trials showed positive results of
similar depth in both groups. Considering the
patient compliance and safety profile of rTMS, the
question raises if rTMS, alone or in combination
with ECT, could not replace or reduce the number
of ECT sessions (Grunhaus et al. 2000; Burt et al.
2002; Janicak et al. 2002; O’Connor et al. 2003).
However, some methodological concerns still exist.
The criticisms concern a lack of adequate blinding
and sham control groups, the concomitant pharma-
cological treatments, the length of treatment period,
sample sizes, the selection of mainly ECT-referred
depressed patients. Furthermore, in severely and
psychotic depressed patients, ECT showed superior
results. A possible explanation is that rTMS has a
sub convulsive effect and that it can only affect a
relatively small focal cortical region, while the
antidepressant effect of ECT is related to its general-
ised electrical and clinical convulsive effect (Fink et
al. 1999). A more powerful hippocampal expression
of immediate-early genes in animals after ECT,
resulting in a greater formation of new cells in this
region could be linked to this convulsive effect
(Bolwig 2003).
Based on those findings and the fact that there was
higher hippocampal long-term potentiation with
more powerful transcranial magnetic stimulation in
rats (Ogiue-Ikeda et al. 2003) at frequencies and
intensities that evoke seizures under anaesthesia,
it seems a reasonable option to do the same in
humans to achieve firm antidepressant effects. This
method is called magnetic seizure therapy (MST).
Theoretically, the induced electric field of unilateral
MST remains more focal and limited than that
induced by ECT. This offers the advantage to target
mood-regulating areas more precisely, avoiding elec-
14
W . Simons & M. Dierick
View other sources
Hide other sources
-
Available from Eva Biringer · 20 Oct 2012
-
Available from neuro.hk