Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: La Stimulation Magnétique Transcrânienne Répétitive Pour le Traitement du Trouble de Stress Post-Traumatiq

TitleRepetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: La Stimulation Magnétique Transcrânienne Répétitive Pour le Traitement du Trouble de Stress Post-Traumatiq
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2020
AuthorsMcGirr A, Devoe DJ, Raedler A, Debert CT, Ismail Z, Berlim M
JournalCan J Psychiatry
Pagination706743720982432
Date Published2020 Dec 23
ISSN1497-0015
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising treatment modality for Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Several targets and stimulation parameters have been investigated, and while previous meta-analyses have suggested that rTMS is efficacious, these have pooled different stimulation parameters and targets, and the relative efficacy of each is unknown.METHODS: We therefore performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO and retaining RCTs with at least 5 individuals per arm and clinician-rated PTSD symptoms (PROSPERO CRD42019134984). We adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and 2 independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility and extracted the primary outcome of clinician-rated PTSD symptoms. Dropouts were extracted as a proxy for acceptability. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis were performed.RESULTS: We synthesize data from 10 RCTs with a total of 421 participants. Two rTMS interventions targeting the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) improved PTSD symptoms relative to sham: low-frequency stimulation (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.18) and high-frequency stimulation (SMD = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.31). Medial PFC dTMS, right DLPFC intermittent theta-burst stimulation, and left DLPFC high-frequency stimulation did not separate from sham. Dropouts as a proxy for acceptability revealed no differences between any of the active conditions or sham nor did any of the active conditions differ from each other.CONCLUSION: The current literature does not support efficacy differences between interventions; however, protocols stimulating the right DLPFC appear superior to sham. It is unclear whether this reflects heterogeneity in pathology requiring a personalized medicine approach or nonspecific mechanisms of rTMS.

DOI10.1177/0706743720982432
Alternate JournalCan J Psychiatry
PubMed ID33355483