Image-based analysis and long-term clinical outcomes of deep brain stimulation for Tourette syndrome: a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be an effective therapy for tics and comorbidities in select cases of severe, treatment-refractory Tourette syndrome (TS). Clinical responses remain variable across patients, which may be attributed to differences in the location of the neuroanatomical regions being stimulated. We evaluated active contact locations and regions of stimulation across a large cohort of patients with TS in an effort to guide future targeting. METHODS: We collected retrospective clinical data and imaging from 13 international sites on 123 patients. We assessed the effects of DBS over time in 110 patients who were implanted in the centromedial (CM) thalamus (n=51), globus pallidus internus (GPi) (n=47), nucleus accumbens/anterior limb of the internal capsule (n=4) or a combination of targets (n=8). Contact locations (n=70 patients) and volumes of tissue activated (n=63 patients) were coregistered to create probabilistic stimulation atlases. RESULTS: Tics and obsessive-compulsive behaviour (OCB) significantly improved over time (p<0.01), and there were no significant differences across brain targets (p>0.05). The median time was 13 months to reach a 40% improvement in tics, and there were no significant differences across targets (p=0.84), presence of OCB (p=0.09) or age at implantation (p=0.08). Active contacts were generally clustered near the target nuclei, with some variability that may reflect differences in targeting protocols, lead models and contact configurations. There were regions within and surrounding GPi and CM thalamus that improved tics for some patients but were ineffective for others. Regions within, superior or medial to GPi were associated with a greater improvement in OCB than regions inferior to GPi. CONCLUSION: The results collectively indicate that DBS may improve tics and OCB, the effects may develop over several months, and stimulation locations relative to structural anatomy alone may not predict response. This study was the first to visualise and evaluate the regions of stimulation across a large cohort of patients with TS to generate new hypotheses about potential targets for improving tics and comorbidities.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Brain Stimulation in Tourette Syndrome: The International Tourette Syndrome Deep Brain Stimulation Public Database and Registry.

Importance: Collective evidence has strongly suggested that deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising therapy for Tourette syndrome. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of DBS in a multinational cohort of patients with Tourette syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants: The prospective International Deep Brain Stimulation Database and Registry included 185 patients with medically refractory Tourette syndrome who underwent DBS implantation from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, at 31 institutions in 10 countries worldwide. Exposures: Patients with medically refractory symptoms received DBS implantation in the centromedian thalamic region (93 of 163 [57.1%]), the anterior globus pallidus internus (41 of 163 [25.2%]), the posterior globus pallidus internus (25 of 163 [15.3%]), and the anterior limb of the internal capsule (4 of 163 [2.5%]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Scores on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale and adverse events. Results: The International Deep Brain Stimulation Database and Registry enrolled 185 patients (of 171 with available data, 37 females and 134 males; mean [SD] age at surgery, 29.1 [10.8] years [range, 13-58 years]). Symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder were present in 97 of 151 patients (64.2%) and 32 of 148 (21.6%) had a history of self-injurious behavior. The mean (SD) total Yale Global Tic Severity Scale score improved from 75.01 (18.36) at baseline to 41.19 (20.00) at 1 year after DBS implantation (P < .001). The mean (SD) motor tic subscore improved from 21.00 (3.72) at baseline to 12.91 (5.78) after 1 year (P < .001), and the mean (SD) phonic tic subscore improved from 16.82 (6.56) at baseline to 9.63 (6.99) at 1 year (P < .001). The overall adverse event rate was 35.4% (56 of 158 patients), with intracranial hemorrhage occurring in 2 patients (1.3%), infection in 4 patients with 5 events (3.2%), and lead explantation in 1 patient (0.6%). The most common stimulation-induced adverse effects were dysarthria (10 [6.3%]) and paresthesia (13 [8.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Deep brain stimulation was associated with symptomatic improvement in patients with Tourette syndrome but also with important adverse events. A publicly available website on outcomes of DBS in patients with Tourette syndrome has been provided.

Biofeedback treatment for Tourette syndrome: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical effectiveness of biofeedback treatment in reducing tics in patients with Tourette syndrome. BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the pharmacologic treatment of patients with Tourette syndrome, many remain troubled by their tics, which may be resistant to multiple medications at tolerable doses. Electrodermal biofeedback is a noninvasive biobehavioral intervention that can be useful in managing neuropsychiatric and neurologic conditions. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of electrodermal biofeedback training in 21 patients with Tourette syndrome. RESULTS: After training the patients for 3 sessions a week over 4 weeks, we observed a significant reduction in tic frequency and improved indices of subjective well-being in both the active-biofeedback and sham-feedback (control) groups, but there was no difference between the groups in these measurements. Furthermore, the active-treatment group did not demonstrably learn to reduce their sympathetic electrodermal tone using biofeedback. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that this form of biofeedback training was unable to produce a clinical effect greater than placebo. The main confounding factor appeared to be the 30-minute duration of the training sessions, which made it difficult for patients to sustain a reduction in sympathetic tone when their tics themselves were generating competing phasic electrodermal arousal responses. Despite a negative finding in this study, electrodermal biofeedback training may have a role in managing tics if optimal training schedules can be identified.