Safety and efficacy of targeting the supplementary motor area with double-cone deep transcranial magnetic stimulation vs figure-eight coil in treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder with comorbid major depressive disorder.


Journal

Journal of psychiatric research
ISSN: 1879-1379
Titre abrégé: J Psychiatr Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0376331

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 26 07 2024
revised: 18 09 2024
accepted: 20 09 2024
medline: 30 9 2024
pubmed: 30 9 2024
entrez: 29 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The Supplementary Motor Area (SMA), a relatively large brain structure predominantly located along the interhemispheric fissure, is an established target for repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). We investigated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of targeting SMA using a double-cone "deep" TMS coil compared to conventional figure-eight coil for treatment of OCD with comorbid Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Sixty-two patients with treatment-resistant OCD and comorbid MDD participated in the study. All patients received high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with a figure-eight coil (MagVenture B70), followed by 1 Hz rTMS over the bilateral SMA using either the B70 (N = 25) or double-cone deep coil (MagVenture DB80) (n = 23) for 36 treatment sessions. Weekly clinical assessments were conducted. Subjects overall had significant reductions in OCD and depressive symptom severity at the primary endpoint. Subjects stimulated at SMA with the double-cone deep coil had statistically significantly lesser reductions in overall OCD and depression symptom severity compared to the figure-eight group. The intensity of stimulation at SMA was significantly greater with the double-cone deep than figure-eight coil and e-field modeling showed that it affected broader regions beyond SMA (off-target stimulation). There was no significant difference in reported tolerability between groups. SMA stimulation using either a double-cone deep or conventional figure-of-eight coil was safe and was associated with a significant reduction in comorbid OCD and depression symptoms, but the higher intensities of stimulation with the double-cone deep coil used in this study were significantly less clinically beneficial than figure-eight coil stimulation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The Supplementary Motor Area (SMA), a relatively large brain structure predominantly located along the interhemispheric fissure, is an established target for repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). We investigated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of targeting SMA using a double-cone "deep" TMS coil compared to conventional figure-eight coil for treatment of OCD with comorbid Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).
METHODS METHODS
Sixty-two patients with treatment-resistant OCD and comorbid MDD participated in the study. All patients received high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with a figure-eight coil (MagVenture B70), followed by 1 Hz rTMS over the bilateral SMA using either the B70 (N = 25) or double-cone deep coil (MagVenture DB80) (n = 23) for 36 treatment sessions. Weekly clinical assessments were conducted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Subjects overall had significant reductions in OCD and depressive symptom severity at the primary endpoint. Subjects stimulated at SMA with the double-cone deep coil had statistically significantly lesser reductions in overall OCD and depression symptom severity compared to the figure-eight group. The intensity of stimulation at SMA was significantly greater with the double-cone deep than figure-eight coil and e-field modeling showed that it affected broader regions beyond SMA (off-target stimulation). There was no significant difference in reported tolerability between groups.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
SMA stimulation using either a double-cone deep or conventional figure-of-eight coil was safe and was associated with a significant reduction in comorbid OCD and depression symptoms, but the higher intensities of stimulation with the double-cone deep coil used in this study were significantly less clinically beneficial than figure-eight coil stimulation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39342761
pii: S0022-3956(24)00548-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.09.026
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

295-299

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Reza Tadayonnejad (R)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. Electronic address: rtadayonnejad@mednet.ucla.edu.

Juliana Corlier (J)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Thomas E Valles (TE)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Cole Citrenbaum (C)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Cole Matthews (C)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Evan Einstein (E)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Scott A Wilke (SA)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Aaron Slan (A)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Margaret G Distler (MG)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Gil Hoftman (G)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Adesewa E Adelekun (AE)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Hanadi A Oughli (HA)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Michael K Leuchter (MK)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Hewa Artin (H)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Ralph J Koek (RJ)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Nathaniel D Ginder (ND)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

David Krantz (D)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Thomas Strouse (T)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Andrew F Leuchter (AF)

TMS Clinical and Research Service, Neuromodulation Division, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, USA; Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Classifications MeSH