Miroslaw Brys1, Michael D Fox1, Shashank Agarwal1, Milton Biagioni1, Geraldine Dacpano1, Pawan Kumar1, Elizabeth Pirraglia1, Robert Chen1, Allan Wu1, Hubert Fernandez1, Aparna Wagle Shukla1, Jau-Shin Lou1, Zachary Gray1, David K Simon1, Alessandro Di Rocco1, Alvaro Pascual-Leone2. 1. From the New York University School of Medicine (M.B., S.A., M.B., G.D., P.K., A.D.R.), Marlene and Paolo Fresco Institute for Parkinson's and Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, New York; Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation (M.D.F., Z.G., A.P.-L.), Division of Cognitive Neurology, and Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center (D.K.S., A.P.-L.), Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (A.W.) and Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center (A.W.), University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Cleveland Clinic (H.F.), Department of Neurology, OH; Toronto Western Research Institute (R.C.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University of Florida (A.W.S.), Department of Neurology, Gainesville; University of North Dakota School of Medicine (J.-S.L.), Department of Neurology, Grand Forks; and Center for Brain Health (E.P.), NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 2. From the New York University School of Medicine (M.B., S.A., M.B., G.D., P.K., A.D.R.), Marlene and Paolo Fresco Institute for Parkinson's and Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, New York; Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation (M.D.F., Z.G., A.P.-L.), Division of Cognitive Neurology, and Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center (D.K.S., A.P.-L.), Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (A.W.) and Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center (A.W.), University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Cleveland Clinic (H.F.), Department of Neurology, OH; Toronto Western Research Institute (R.C.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University of Florida (A.W.S.), Department of Neurology, Gainesville; University of North Dakota School of Medicine (J.-S.L.), Department of Neurology, Grand Forks; and Center for Brain Health (E.P.), NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. apleone@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether multifocal, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of motor and prefrontal cortex benefits motor and mood symptoms in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: Patients with PD and depression were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study of real or realistic (electric) sham rTMS. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: bilateral M1 ( + sham dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), DLPFC ( + sham M1), M1 + DLPFC, or double sham. The TMS course consisted of 10 daily sessions of 2,000 stimuli for the left DLPFC and 1,000 stimuli for each M1 (50 × 4-second trains of 40 stimuli at 10 Hz). Patients were evaluated at baseline, at 1 week, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Primary endpoints were changes in motor function assessed with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III and in mood with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients planned for recruitment, 85 were screened, 61 were randomized, and 50 completed all study visits. Real M1 rTMS resulted in greater improvement in motor function than sham at the primary endpoint (p < 0.05). There was no improvement in mood in the DLPFC group compared to the double-sham group, as well as no benefit to combining M1 and DLPFC stimulation for either motor or mood symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS is an effective treatment of motor symptoms, while mood benefit after 2 weeks of DLPFC rTMS is not better than sham. Targeting both M1 and DLPFC in each rTMS session showed no evidence of synergistic effects. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01080794. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that in patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS leads to improvement in motor function while DLPFC rTMS does not lead to improvement in depression compared to sham rTMS.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether multifocal, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of motor and prefrontal cortex benefits motor and mood symptoms in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: Patients with PD and depression were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study of real or realistic (electric) sham rTMS. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: bilateral M1 ( + sham dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), DLPFC ( + sham M1), M1 + DLPFC, or double sham. The TMS course consisted of 10 daily sessions of 2,000 stimuli for the left DLPFC and 1,000 stimuli for each M1 (50 × 4-second trains of 40 stimuli at 10 Hz). Patients were evaluated at baseline, at 1 week, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Primary endpoints were changes in motor function assessed with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III and in mood with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients planned for recruitment, 85 were screened, 61 were randomized, and 50 completed all study visits. Real M1 rTMS resulted in greater improvement in motor function than sham at the primary endpoint (p < 0.05). There was no improvement in mood in the DLPFC group compared to the double-sham group, as well as no benefit to combining M1 and DLPFC stimulation for either motor or mood symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS is an effective treatment of motor symptoms, while mood benefit after 2 weeks of DLPFC rTMS is not better than sham. Targeting both M1 and DLPFC in each rTMS session showed no evidence of synergistic effects. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01080794. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that in patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS leads to improvement in motor function while DLPFC rTMS does not lead to improvement in depression compared to sham rTMS.
Authors: Jose Rafael Romero; David Anschel; Roland Sparing; Massimo Gangitano; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mikhail P Lomarev; Sulada Kanchana; William Bara-Jimenez; Meena Iyer; Eric M Wassermann; Mark Hallett Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: D H Benninger; B D Berman; E Houdayer; N Pal; D A Luckenbaugh; L Schneider; S Miranda; M Hallett Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Natasa Dragasevic; Aleksandra Potrebić; Aleksandar Damjanović; Elka Stefanova; Vladimir S Kostić Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Joanne Wuu; Michael P McDermott; Charles H Adler; Stanley Fahn; Curt R Freed; Robert A Hauser; Warren C Olanow; Ira Shoulson; P K Tandon; Sue Leurgans Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Christoph Mueller; Anto P Rajkumar; Yi Min Wan; Latha Velayudhan; Dominic Ffytche; Kallol Ray Chaudhuri; Dag Aarsland Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Andreas Horn; Martin Reich; Johannes Vorwerk; Ningfei Li; Gregor Wenzel; Qianqian Fang; Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch; Robert Nickl; Andreas Kupsch; Jens Volkmann; Andrea A Kühn; Michael D Fox Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 10.422