André Aleman1, Stefanie Enriquez-Geppert2, Henderikus Knegtering3, Jozarni J Dlabac-de Lange4. 1. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Affective and Social Cognitive Science, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, China; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neuroscience, Groningen, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, Department of Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.aleman@umcg.nl. 2. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neuroscience, Groningen, The Netherlands; Lentis Mental Health Center, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Neuroscience, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms in schizophrenia concern a clinically relevant reduction of goal-directed behavior that strongly and negatively impacts daily functioning. Existing treatments are of marginal effect and novel approaches are needed. Noninvasive neurostimulation by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are novel approaches that may hold promise. OBJECTIVES: To provide a quantitative integration of the published evidence regarding effects of rTMS and tDCS over the frontal cortex on negative symptoms, including an analysis of effects of sham stimulation. METHODS: Meta-analysis was applied, using a random effects model, to calculate mean weighted effect sizes (Cohen's d). Heterogeneity was assessed by using Cochrans Q and I2 tests. RESULTS: For rTMS treatment, the mean weighted effect size compared to sham stimulation was 0.64 (0.32-0.96; k = 22, total N = 827). Studies with younger participants showed stronger effects as compared to studies with older participants. For tDCS studies a mean weighted effect size of 0.50 (-0.07 to 1.07; k = 5, total N = 134) was found. For all frontal noninvasive neurostimulation studies together (i.e., TMS and tDCS studies combined) active stimulation was superior to sham, the mean weighted effect size was 0.61 (24 studies, 27 comparisons, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.89; total N = 961). Sham rTMS (baseline - posttreatment comparison) showed a significant improvement of negative symptoms, d = 0.31 (0.09-0.52; k = 16, total N = 333). Whereas previous meta-analyses were underpowered, our meta-analysis had a power of 0.87 to detect a small effect. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that noninvasive prefrontal neurostimulation can improve negative symptoms. This finding suggests a causal role for the lateral frontal cortex in self-initiated goal-directed behavior. The evidence is stronger for rTMS than for tDCS, although this may be due to the small number of studies as yet with tDCS. More research is needed to establish moderator variables that may affect response to neurostimulation and to optimize treatment parameters in order to achieve stable and durable (and thus clinically relevant) effects.
BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms in schizophrenia concern a clinically relevant reduction of goal-directed behavior that strongly and negatively impacts daily functioning. Existing treatments are of marginal effect and novel approaches are needed. Noninvasive neurostimulation by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are novel approaches that may hold promise. OBJECTIVES: To provide a quantitative integration of the published evidence regarding effects of rTMS and tDCS over the frontal cortex on negative symptoms, including an analysis of effects of sham stimulation. METHODS: Meta-analysis was applied, using a random effects model, to calculate mean weighted effect sizes (Cohen's d). Heterogeneity was assessed by using Cochrans Q and I2 tests. RESULTS: For rTMS treatment, the mean weighted effect size compared to sham stimulation was 0.64 (0.32-0.96; k = 22, total N = 827). Studies with younger participants showed stronger effects as compared to studies with older participants. For tDCS studies a mean weighted effect size of 0.50 (-0.07 to 1.07; k = 5, total N = 134) was found. For all frontal noninvasive neurostimulation studies together (i.e., TMS and tDCS studies combined) active stimulation was superior to sham, the mean weighted effect size was 0.61 (24 studies, 27 comparisons, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.89; total N = 961). Sham rTMS (baseline - posttreatment comparison) showed a significant improvement of negative symptoms, d = 0.31 (0.09-0.52; k = 16, total N = 333). Whereas previous meta-analyses were underpowered, our meta-analysis had a power of 0.87 to detect a small effect. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that noninvasive prefrontal neurostimulation can improve negative symptoms. This finding suggests a causal role for the lateral frontal cortex in self-initiated goal-directed behavior. The evidence is stronger for rTMS than for tDCS, although this may be due to the small number of studies as yet with tDCS. More research is needed to establish moderator variables that may affect response to neurostimulation and to optimize treatment parameters in order to achieve stable and durable (and thus clinically relevant) effects.
Authors: Leandro da Costa Lane Valiengo; Stephan Goerigk; Pedro Caldana Gordon; Frank Padberg; Mauricio Henriques Serpa; Stephanie Koebe; Leonardo Afonso Dos Santos; Roger Alberto Marcos Lovera; Juliana Barbosa de Carvalho; Martinus van de Bilt; Acioly L T Lacerda; Helio Elkis; Wagner Farid Gattaz; Andre R Brunoni Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Mauro Pettorruso; Massimo di Giannantonio; Luisa De Risio; Giovanni Martinotti; George F Koob Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2020 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Mei Hong Xiu; Heng Yong Guan; Jian Min Zhao; Ke Qiang Wang; Yan Fen Pan; Xiu Ru Su; Yu Hong Wang; Jin Ming Guo; Long Jiang; Hong Yu Liu; Shi Guang Sun; Hao Ran Wu; Han Song Geng; Xiao Wen Liu; Hui Jing Yu; Bao Chun Wei; Xi Po Li; Tammy Trinh; Shu Ping Tan; Xiang Yang Zhang Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Roman Kotov; Katherine G Jonas; William T Carpenter; Michael N Dretsch; Nicholas R Eaton; Miriam K Forbes; Kelsie T Forbush; Kelsey Hobbs; Ulrich Reininghaus; Tim Slade; Susan C South; Matthew Sunderland; Monika A Waszczuk; Thomas A Widiger; Aidan G C Wright; David H Zald; Robert F Krueger; David Watson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Stephen J Brandt; Halimah Y Oral; Carla Arellano-Bravo; Martin H Plawecki; Tom A Hummer; Michael M Francis Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 7.620