Search

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) as an intervention for schizophrenia remain unclear. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of dTMS for schizophrenia.MethodsA systematic search of Chinese (WanFang and Chinese Journal Net) and English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were conducted.ResultsThree randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 80 patients were included in the analyses. Active dTMS was comparable to the sham treatment in improving total psychopathology, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and auditory hallucinations measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale (AHRS), respectively. Only one RCT reported the effects on neurocognitive function measured by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), suggesting that dTMS may only improve one Stockings of Cambridge measure (i.e., subsequent times for five move problems). All three studies reported overall discontinuation rates, which ranged from 16.7% to 44.4%. Adverse events were reported in only one RCT, the most common being tingling/twitching (30.0%, 3/10), head/facial discomfort (30.0%, 3/10), and back pain (20.0%, 2/10).ConclusionThis systematic review suggests that dTMS does not reduce psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia, but it shows potential for improving executive functions. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes focusing on the effects of dTMS on psychotic symptoms and neurocognitive function in schizophrenia are warranted to further explore these findings.

BackgroundIn randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the application of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in schizophrenia, inconsistent results have been reported. The purpose of this exploratory systematic review of RCTs was to evaluate tACS as an adjunct treatment for patients with schizophrenia based on its therapeutic effects, tolerability, and safety.MethodsOur analysis included RCTs that evaluated adjunctive tACS’ effectiveness, tolerability, and safety in schizophrenia patients. Three independent authors extracted data and synthesized it using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsThree RCTs involving 76 patients with schizophrenia were encompassed in the analysis, with 40 participants receiving active tACS and 36 receiving sham tACS. Our study revealed a significant superiority of active tACS over sham tACS in improving total psychopathology (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.12, −0.10; I2 = 16%, p = 0.02) and negative psychopathology (SMD = −0.65, 95% CI: −1.11, −0.18; I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) in schizophrenia. The two groups, however, showed no significant differences in positive psychopathology, general psychopathology, or auditory hallucinations (all p > 0.05). Two RCTs examined the neurocognitive effects of tACS, yielding varied findings. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of discontinuation due to any reason and adverse events (all p > 0.05).ConclusionAdjunctive tACS is promising as a viable approach for mitigating total and negative psychopathology in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of tACS’s therapeutic effects in schizophrenia, it is imperative to conduct extensive, meticulously planned, and well-documented RCTs.

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted to explore the therapeutic effects, tolerability and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as an adjunct treatment in adolescents with first-episode major depressive disorder (FE-MDD).MethodsRCTs examining the efficacy, tolerability and safety of adjunctive rTMS for adolescents with FE-MDD were included. Data were extracted by three independent authors and synthesized using RevMan 5.3 software with a random effects model.ResultsA total of six RCTs involving 562 adolescents with FE-MDD were included. Adjunctive rTMS was superior in improving depressive symptoms over the control group [standardized mean difference (SMD) = −1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): −2.16, −0.84; I2 = 89%, p

ObjectiveIntermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), which is a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), can produce 600 pulses to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in a stimulation time of just over 3 min. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the safety and efficacy of iTBS and high-frequency (≥ 5 Hz) rTMS (HF-rTMS) for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of iTBS and HF-rTMS were identified by searching English and Chinese databases. The primary outcomes were study-defined response and remission.ResultsTwo RCTs (n = 474) investigating the efficacy and safety of adjunctive iTBS (n = 239) versus HF-rTMS (n = 235) for adult patients with TRD met the inclusion criteria. Among the two included studies (Jadad score = 5), all were classified as high quality. No group differences were found regarding the overall rates of response (iTBS group: 48.0% versus HF-rTMS group: 45.5%) and remission (iTBS group: 30.0% versus HF-rTMS group: 25.2%; all Ps > 0.05). The rates of discontinuation and adverse events such as headache were similar between the two groups (all Ps > 0.05).ConclusionThe antidepressant effects and safety of iTBS and HF-rTMS appeared to be similar for patients with TRD, although additional RCTs with rigorous methodology are needed.

ObjectiveWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials (RCTs) to systematically investigate the therapeutic effects and tolerability of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsElectronic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, and the Cochrane Library up to 1 April 2022. Double-blind RCTs examining the efficacy and safety of tACS for patients with MDD were included. The primary outcome was the improvement of depressive symptoms following a course of tACS treatment. Data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3 (Cochrane IMS, Oxford, UK). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and Jadad scale. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and the Egger test.ResultsWe identified 883 articles, of which 4 RCTs with 5 active treatment arms covering 224 participants with MDD on active tACS (n = 117) and sham tACS (n = 107) were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of depressive symptoms at post-tACS found an advantage of active tACS over sham tACS (n = 212, standard mean difference (SMD) = −1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): −2.23, −0.06; I2 = 90%, P = 0.04). The significant superiority of active tACS over sham tACS in improving depressive symptoms remained in a sensitivity analysis. Active tACS was significantly superior to sham tACS regarding depressive symptoms at the 4 week follow-up (SMD = −1.07, 95% CI: −2.05, −0.08; I2 = 88%, P = 0.03) and study-defined remission [risk ratio (RR) = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.36, 3.14, I2 = 9%, P = 0.0006]. The discontinuation rate due to any reason was similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). All included studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 3), with funnel plots of primary outcome not suggestive of publication bias.ConclusiontACS appeared to be modestly effective and safe for improving depressive symptoms in patients with MDD, although further studies are warranted.

BackgroundElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a safe and effective therapy for individuals suffering from major psychiatric disorders, but attitudes towards ECT among patients and caregivers have not been well studied. This study was conducted to elucidate patient and caregiver knowledge and attitudes concerning ECT in South China.MethodsThe sample comprised 92 patients diagnosed with major psychiatric disorders and their caregivers (n = 92). Participants completed questionnaire measures of knowledge and attitudes related to ECT.ResultsInformation before ECT was inadequately provided to both caregivers and patients (55.4% versus 37.0%, p 0.05), while more than half of them believed that ECT was beneficial (53.3% versus 71.7%, p 0.05). A total of 32.6% of patients and 55.4% of caregivers (p

Objective: The efficacy and safety of adjunctive magnetic seizure therapy (MST) for patients with schizophrenia are unclear. This systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of adjunctive MST for schizophrenia.Methods: Chinese (WanFang and Chinese Journal Net) and English (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) databases were systematically searched.Results: Two open-label self-controlled studies (n = 16) were included and analyzed in this review. In these studies, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total scores significantly decreased from baseline to post-MST (all Ps < 0.05), without serious adverse neurocognitive effects. Mixed findings on the neurocognitive effects of adjunctive MST for schizophrenia were reported in the two studies. A discontinuation rate of treatment of up to 50% (4/8) was reported in both studies. The rate of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was evaluated in only one study, where the most common ADRs were found to be dizziness (25%, 2/8) and subjective memory loss (12.5%, 1/8).Conclusion: There is inconsistent evidence for MST-related adverse neurocognitive effects and preliminary evidence for the alleviation of psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia.