| Literature DB >> 31402851 |
Angela Sanna1, Liana Fattore2, Paola Badas3, Giorgio Corona3, Viola Cocco1, Marco Diana4.
Abstract
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is earning a role in the therapeutic arsenal of cocaine use disorder (CUD). A widespread and still growing number of studies have reported beneficial use of repeated TMS (rTMS) in reduction of craving, intake and cue-induced craving in cocaine addicts. In spite of these encouraging findings, many issues are still unresolved such as brain area to be stimulated, laterality of the effects, coil geometry and stimulation protocols/parameters. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a more tolerable protocol administered at lower intensities and shorter intervals than conventional rTMS protocols. Yet, its effects on cocaine craving and length of abstinence in comparison with standard high frequency (10-15 Hz) protocols have never been evaluated so far. In the present paper, we describe the effect of the bilateral iTBS of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in a population (n = 25) of treatment-seeking cocaine addicts, in an outpatient setting, and compare them with 15 Hz stimulation of the same brain area (n = 22). The results indicate that iTBS produces effects on cocaine consumption and cocaine craving virtually superimposable to the 15 Hz rTMS group. Both treatments had low numbers of dropouts and similar side-effects, safety and tolerability profiles. While larger studies are warranted to confirm these observations, iTBS appears to be a valid approach to be considered in treatment-seeking cocaine addicts, especially in light of its brief duration (3 min) vs. 15 Hz stimulation (15 min). The use of iTBS would allow increasing the number of patients treated per day with current rTMS devices, thus reducing patient discomfort and hopefully reducing drop-out rates without compromising clinical effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: cocaine; craving; intermittent theta burst stimulation; neuromodulation; transcranial magnetic stimulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31402851 PMCID: PMC6670008 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Patterns of TBS. Top: the basic element of TBS is a 3-pulse burst at 50 Hz delivered every 200 ms (i.e., 5 Hz). A train of 10 bursts lasting for 2 s is given every 10 s for 20 cycles in iTBS, for a total of 190 s (iTBS) while 100 or 200 continuous bursts are given continuously for 20 or 40 s, respectively, in cTBS. 10 Hz rTMS is illustrated for comparison. Bottom: X indicates a single iTBS session in the 4 weeks of treatment. Note that two sessions are administered in the same day during the 1st week of treatment.
Baseline socio- demographic characteristics of the sample and clinical variables (M ± SD and range).
| Gender (F/M) | 1/22 | 1/25 | ||
| Age (years) | 35,9 (8,5) | 38,9 (8,0) | NS | |
| Duration of cocaine use (years) | 12,6 (8,0) | 16,1 (9,2) | NS | |
| Weekly cocaine amount (g) | 9,6 (8,2) | 8,1 (6,9) | NS | |
| Route of administration | Inhalation | 13 | 19 | NS |
| Smoke | 7 | 6 | NS | |
| Injective | 2 | 0 | NS | |
| Psychiatric comorbidities | 7/22 | 7/25 | NS | |
| Mood disorder | 4/22 | 4/25 | NS | |
| Personality disorder | 3/22 | 1/25 | NS | |
| Anxiety | 3/22 | 3/25 | NS | |
| Psychoactive prescription drugs | 8/22 | 10/25 | NS | |
| Mood stabilizers | 2/22 | 1/25 | NS | |
| Benzodiazepines | 4/22 | 4/25 | NS | |
| Antidepressants | 3/22 | 3/25 | NS | |
| Antipsychotics | 2/22 | 3/25 | NS | |
| Other actual addiction | 12/22 | 12/25 | NS | |
| Nicotine | 12/22 | 12/25 | NS | |
| Alcohol | 3/22 | 5/25 | NS | |
| GAP | 1/22 | 3/25 | NS | |
| Heroin | 2/22 | 2/25 | NS | |
| Past quit attempts | 15/22 | 19/25 | NS | |
| Drop out | 2/22 | 2/25 | NS |
Side effects of HF and TBS protocols.
| Headache | 2/22 | 3/25 | NS |
| Dizziness | 1/22 | 1/25 | NS |
| Sleepiness | 4/22 | 4/25 | NS |
| Insomnia | 0/22 | 1/25 | NS |
FIGURE 2(A) Effect of HF (black columns) and iTBS (white columns) treatment on cocaine consumption (g/week). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. ∗∗∗P < 0.001 vs. day 1. (B) Kaplan Meier curve comparison between HF (dashed line) and iTBS (solid line). Data are presented as proportion of positive tests for each time point.
FIGURE 3Reduction of the craving scale (A) and WHO ASSIST scale (B) after HF (black columns) and iTBS (white columns) treatment. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. ∗∗∗P < 0.001 vs. Day 1.