A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) enhances cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTMS protocols are promising as they substantially reduce burden by shortening the treatment course, but the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of iTBS have not been established in MCI. METHODS: 24 older adults with amnestic MCI (aMCI) due to possible Alzheimer's disease enrolled in a phase I trial of open-label accelerated iTBS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (8 stimulation sessions of 600 pulses of iTBS/day for 3 days). Participants rated common side effects during and after each session and retrospectively (at post-treatment and 4-week follow-up). They completed brain MRI (for safety assessments and electric field modeling), neuropsychiatric evaluations, and neuropsychological testing before and after treatment; a subset of measures was administered at follow-up. RESULTS: Retention was high (95%) and there were no adverse neuroradiological, neuropsychiatric, or neurocognitive effects of treatment. Participants reported high acceptability, minimal side effects, and low desire to quit despite some rating the treatment as tiring. Electric field modeling data suggest that all participants received safe and therapeutic cortical stimulation intensities. We observed a significant, large effect size (d=0.98) improvement in fluid cognition using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery from pre-treatment to post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of accelerated iTBS in aMCI. In addition, we provide evidence of target engagement in the form of improved cognition following treatment. These promising results directly inform future trials aimed at optimizing treatment parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04503096.

Neuronavigation maximizes accuracy and precision in TMS positioning: Evidence from 11,230 distance, angle, and electric field modeling measurements.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians have traditionally relied on elastic caps with markings to reposition the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil between trains and sessions. Newer neuronavigation technology co-registers the patient's head and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, providing the researcher with real-time feedback about how to adjust the coil to be on-target. However, there has been no head to head comparison of accuracy and precision across treatment sessions. OBJECTIVE: /Hypothesis: In this two-part study, we compared elastic cap and neuronavigation targeting methodologies on distance, angle, and electric field (E-field) magnitude values. METHODS: In 42 participants receiving up to 50 total accelerated rTMS sessions in 5 days, we compared cap and neuronavigation targeting approaches in 3408 distance and 6816 angle measurements. In Experiment 1, TMS administrators saved an on-target neuronavigation location at Beam F3, which served as the landmark for all other measurements. Next, the operators placed the TMS coil based on cap markings or neuronavigation software to measure the distance and angle differences from the on-target sample. In Experiment 2, we saved each XYZ coordinate of the TMS coil from cap and neuronavigation targeting in 12 participants to compare the E-field magnitude differences at the cortical prefrontal target in 1106 cap and neuronavigation models. RESULTS: Cap targeting was significantly off-target for distance, placing the coil an average of 10.66 mm off-target (Standard error of the mean; SEM = 0.19 mm) compared to 0.3 mm (SEM = 0.03 mm) for neuronavigation (p < 0.0001). Cap targeting also significantly deviated for angles off-target, averaging 7.79 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 1.07°) off-target and 5.99 yaw degrees (SEM = 0.12°) off-target; in comparison, neuronavigation targeting positioned the coil 0.34 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 0.01°) and 0.22 yaw (SEM = 0.004°) off-target (both p < 0.0001). Further analyses revealed that there were significant inter-operator differences on distance and angle positioning for F3 (all p < 0.05), but not neuronavigation. Lastly, cap targeting resulted in significantly lower E-fields at the intended prefrontal cortical target, with equivalent E-fields as 110.7% motor threshold (MT; range = 58.3-127.4%) stimulation vs. 119.9% MT (range = 115-123.3%) from neuronavigated targeting with 120% MT stimulation applied (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cap-based targeting is an inherent source of target variability compared to neuronavigation. Additionally, cap-based coil placement is more prone to differences across operators. Off-target coil placement secondary to cap-based measurements results in significantly lower amounts of stimulation reaching the cortical target, with some individuals receiving only 48.6% of the intended on-target E-field. Neuronavigation technology enables more precise and accurate TMS positioning, resulting in the intended stimulation intensities at the targeted cortical level.

A transdiagnostic review of safety, efficacy, and parameter space in accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation (aTMS) is an emerging delivery schedule of repetitive TMS (rTMS). TMS is "accelerated" by applying two or more stimulation sessions within a day. This three-part review comprehensively reports the safety/tolerability, efficacy, and stimulation parameters affecting response across disorders. METHODS: We used the PubMed database to identify studies administering aTMS, which we defined as applying at least two rTMS sessions within one day. RESULTS: Our targeted literature search identified 85 aTMS studies across 18 diagnostic and healthy control groups published from July 2001 to June 2022. Excluding overlapping populations, 63 studies delivered 43,873 aTMS sessions using low frequency, high frequency, and theta burst stimulation in 1543 participants. Regarding safety, aTMS studies had similar seizure and side effect incidence rates to those reported for once daily rTMS. One seizure was reported from aTMS (0.0023% of aTMS sessions, compared with 0.0075% in once daily rTMS). The most common side effects were acute headache (28.4%), fatigue (8.6%), and scalp discomfort (8.3%), with all others under 5%. We evaluated aTMS efficacy in 23 depression studies (the condition with the most studies), finding an average response rate of 42.4% and remission rate of 28.4% (range = 0-90.5% for both). Regarding parameters, aTMS studies ranged from 2 to 10 sessions per day over 2-30 treatment days, 10-640 min between sessions, and a total of 9-104 total accelerated TMS sessions per participant (including tapering sessions). Qualitatively, response rate tends to be higher with an increasing number of sessions per day, total sessions, and total pulses. DISCUSSION: The literature to date suggests that aTMS is safe and well-tolerated across conditions. Taken together, these early studies suggest potential effectiveness even in highly treatment refractory conditions with the added potential to reduce patient burden while also expediting response time. Future studies are warranted to systematically investigate how key aTMS parameters affect treatment outcome and durability.

Electric Field Strength From Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Determines Degree of Working Memory Response: A Potential Application of Reverse-Calculation Modeling?

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for working memory is an enticing treatment, but there is mixed evidence to date. OBJECTIVES: We tested the effects of electric field strength from uniform 2 mA dosing on working memory change from prestimulation to poststimulation. Second, we statistically evaluated a reverse-calculation method of individualizing tDCS dose and its effect on normalizing electric field at the cortex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed electric field modeling on a data set of 28 healthy older adults (15 women, mean age = 73.7, SD = 7.3) who received ten sessions of active 2 mA tDCS (N = 14) or sham tDCS (N = 14) applied over bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC) in a triple-blind design. We evaluated the relationship between electric field strength and working memory change on an N-back task in conditions of above-median, high electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), below-median, low electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), and sham (N = 14) at regions of interest (ROI) at the left and right DLPFC. We then determined the individualized reverse-calculation dose to produce the group average electric field and measured the electric field variance between uniform 2 mA doses vs individualized reverse-calculation doses at the same ROIs. RESULTS: Working memory improvements from pre- to post-tDCS were significant for the above-median electric field from active 2 mA condition at the left DLPFC (mixed ANOVA, p = 0.013). Furthermore, reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduced electric field variance at both ROIs (Levene's test; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher electric fields at the left DLPFC from uniform 2 mA doses appear to drive working memory improvements from tDCS. Individualized doses from reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduce electric field variance at the cortex. Taken together, using reverse-calculation modeling to produce the same, high electric fields at the cortex across participants may produce more effective future tDCS treatments for working memory.