Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, Alzheimer's disease-related dementias, and other cognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of TMS on cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), AD-related dementias, and nondementia conditions with comorbid cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Systematic review, Meta-Analysis. SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2000, to February 9, 2023. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: RCTs, open-label, and case series studies reporting cognitive outcomes following TMS intervention were included. MEASUREMENT: Cognitive and safety outcomes were measured. Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs and MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) criteria were used to evaluate study quality. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326423). RESULTS: The systematic review included 143 studies (n = 5,800 participants) worldwide, encompassing 94 RCTs, 43 open-label prospective, 3 open-label retrospective, and 3 case series. The meta-analysis included 25 RCTs in MCI and AD. Collectively, these studies provide evidence of improved global and specific cognitive measures with TMS across diagnostic groups. Only 2 studies (among 143) reported 4 adverse events of seizures: 3 were deemed TMS unrelated and another resolved with coil repositioning. Meta-analysis showed large effect sizes on global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (SMD = 0.80 [0.26, 1.33], p = 0.003), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SMD = 0.85 [0.26, 1.44], p = 0.005), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SMD = -0.96 [-1.32, -0.60], p < 0.001)) in MCI and AD, although with significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The reviewed studies provide favorable evidence of improved cognition with TMS across all groups with cognitive impairment. TMS was safe and well tolerated with infrequent serious adverse events.

Use of perceptual memory as a performance validity indicator: initial validation with simulated mild traumatic brain injury.

INTRODUCTION: Many commonly employed performance validity tests (PVTs) are several decades old and vulnerable to compromise, leading to a need for novel instruments. Because implicit/non-declarative memory may be robust to brain damage, tasks that rely upon such memory may serve as an effective PVT. Using a simulation design, this experiment evaluated whether novel tasks that rely upon perceptual memory hold promise as PVTs. METHOD: Sixty healthy participants were provided instructions to simulate symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), and they were compared to a group of 20 honest responding individuals. Simulator groups received varying levels of information concerning TBI symptoms, resulting in naïve, sophisticated, and test-coached groups. The Word Memory Test, Test of Memory Malingering, and California Verbal Learning Test-II Forced Choice Recognition Test were administered. To assess perceptual memory, selected images from the Gollin Incomplete Figures and Mooney Closure Test were presented as visual perception tasks. After brief delays, memory for the images was assessed. RESULTS: No group differences emerged on the perception trials of the Gollin and Mooney figures, but simulators remembered fewer images than the honest responders. Simulator groups differed on the standard PVTs, but they performed equivalently on the Gollin and Mooney figures, implying robustness to coaching. Relying upon a criterion of 90% specificity, the Gollin and Mooney figures achieved at least 90% sensitivity, comparing favorably to the standard PVTs. CONCLUSIONS: The Gollin and Mooney figures hold promise as novel PVTs. As perceptual memory tests, they may be relatively robust to brain damage, but future research involving clinical samples is necessary to substantiate this assertion.

The relationship between performance validity testing, external incentives, and cognitive functioning in long COVID.

INTRODUCTION: Performance validity test (PVT) failures occur in clinical practice and at higher rates with external incentives. However, little PVT research has been applied to the Long COVID population. This study aims to address this gap. METHODS: Participants were 247 consecutive individuals with Long COVID seen for neuropsychological evaluation who completed 4 PVTs and a standardized neuropsychological battery. The sample was 84.2% White and 66% female. The mean age was 51.16 years and mean education was 14.75 years. Medical records were searched for external incentive (e.g., disability claims). Three groups were created based on PVT failures (Pass [no failures], Intermediate [1 failure], and Fail [2+ failures]). RESULTS: A total of 8.9% participants failed 2+ PVTs, 6.4% failed one PVT, and 85% passed PVTs. From the full sample, 25.1% were identified with external incentive. However, there was a significant difference between the rates of external incentives in the Fail group (54.5%) compared to the Pass (22.1%) and Intermediate (20%) groups. Further, the Fail group had lower cognitive scores and higher frequency of impaired range scores, consistent with PVT research in other populations. External incentives were uncorrelated with cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other populations, results suggest Long COVID cases are not immune to PVT failure and external incentives are associated with PVT failure. Results indicated that individuals in the Pass and Intermediate groups showed no evidence for significant cognitive deficits, but the Fail group had significantly poorer cognitive performance. Thus, PVTs should be routinely administered in Long COVID cases and research.

Neuropsychology practice guidance for the neuropsychiatric aspects of Long COVID.

Objective: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has had a profound global impact on individual health and well-being in adults and children. While most fully recover from COVID-19, a relatively large subgroup continues to experience persistent physical, cognitive, and emotional/behavioral symptoms beyond the initial infection period. The World Health Organization has termed this phenomenon "Post-COVID-19 Condition" (PCC), better known as "Long COVID." Due to the cognitive and psychosocial symptoms, neuropsychologists often assess and recommend treatment for individuals with Long COVID. However, guidance for neuropsychologists' involvement in clinical care, policy-making, and research has not yet been developed. The authors of this manuscript convened to address this critical gap and develop guidance for clinical neuropsychologists working with patients presenting with Long COVID. Method: Authors include pediatric and adult neuropsychologists with expertise in Long COVID and behavioral health. All authors have been engaged in clinical and research efforts examining the impact of COVID-19. Authors summarized the literature-to-date pertinent to the neuropsychiatric sequelae of Long COVID and developed guidance for neuropsychologists working with individuals with Long COVID. Conclusions: Research findings regarding neuropsychiatric symptoms associated with Long COVID are mixed and limited by methodological differences. As they practice and conduct research, neuropsychologists should remain mindful of the evolving and tenuous nature of the literature.