Theta-Burst Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract
Objective:
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric disorder associated with disruption in social and occupational function. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) represents a novel approach to PTSD, and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) is a new, more rapid administration protocol with data supporting efficacy in depression. The authors conducted a sham-controlled study of iTBS for PTSD.
Methods:
Fifty veterans with PTSD received 10 days of sham-controlled iTBS (1,800 pulses/day), followed by 10 unblinded sessions. Primary outcome measures included acceptability (retention rates), changes in PTSD symptoms (clinician- and self-rated), quality of life, social and occupational function, and depression, obtained at the end of 2 weeks; analysis of variance was used to compare active with sham stimulation. Secondary outcomes were evaluated 1 month after treatment, using mixed-model analyses. Resting-state functional MRI was acquired at pretreatment baseline on an eligible subset of participants (N=26) to identify response predictors.
Results:
Retention was high, side effects were consistent with standard TMS, and blinding was successful. At 2 weeks, active iTBS was significantly associated with improved social and occupational function (Cohen’s d=0.39); depression was improved with iTBS compared with the sham treatment (d=−0.45), but the difference fell short of significance, and moderate nonsignificant effect sizes were observed on self-reported PTSD symptoms (d=−0.34). One-month outcomes, which incorporated data from the unblinded phase of the study, indicated superiority of active iTBS on clinician- and self-rated PTSD symptoms (d=−0.74 and −0.63, respectively), depression (d=−0.47), and social and occupational function (d=0.93) (all significant). Neuroimaging indicated that clinical improvement was significantly predicted by stronger (greater positive) connectivity within the default mode network and by anticorrelated (greater negative) cross-network connectivity.
Conclusions:
iTBS appears to be a promising new treatment for PTSD. Most clinical improvements from stimulation occurred early, which suggests a need for further investigation of optimal iTBS time course and duration. Consistent with previous neuroimaging studies of TMS, default mode network connectivity played an important role in response prediction.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent psychiatric disorder associated with marked occupational and social dysfunction (1) and characterized by pervasive intrusive thoughts/recollections, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, hyperarousal, and mood/cognitive impairment (1–3). PTSD also has substantial psychiatric and medical comorbidity (4). Evidence-based PTSD treatments, including psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, may be less effective in reducing symptoms and improving function in veterans compared with the general population (5). There is thus a pressing need to develop novel interventions for veterans with PTSD.
Noninvasive neuromodulation is developing rapidly across psychiatry, setting the stage for innovative interventions. A body of literature now supports the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for pharmacoresistant major depression (e.g., 6, 7), although this may be less effective in veterans and particularly for those with comorbid PTSD (8). While existing data suggest the effectiveness of TMS for PTSD (9–11; reviewed in 12, 13), we and others (e.g., 14) believe that lengthy administration times impede broader implementation. Moreover, whether stimulation yields functional improvement remains unknown.
Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) is a novel TMS protocol that rapidly induces synaptic plasticity (15). During TBS, short bursts of high-frequency (50 Hz) stimulation are repeated at 5 Hz (200 ms interval). TBS can be intermittent (iTBS) or continuous and is associated with long-term potentiation–like and long-term depression–like activity, respectively (15). Several factors suggest that TBS may be useful in PTSD. First, its brevity allows for easy clinic operation and potential combination with psychotherapy. Second, TBS’s patterned nature resembles theta oscillations of hippocampal memory systems (16). PTSD is defined, at its core, by the impact of intrusive traumatic memories, and in translational models TBS can induce hippocampal synaptic connections and activity (17). Taken together, the data provide a theoretical justification for use of TBS for PTSD.
PTSD is associated with pathological function in three large-scale functional networks: the default mode network, the executive control network, and the salience network (18). The default mode network is involved in self-referential processing and episodic memory; core regions include the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), posterior cingulate cortex, medial parietal cortex, and temporal cortex (19). The executive control network, with hubs in the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and lateral posterior parietal regions, is involved in executive functioning, including emotion regulation and working memory (20). Finally, the salience network, with hubs in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and amygdala, is implicated in detection of, and attention to, salient environmental stimuli (21). Neuroimaging studies in PTSD have reported increased salience network connectivity reflecting increased threat detection (22) and disrupted executive control network connectivity. Reduced default mode network connectivity is generally identified in PTSD (23–25, but see also 26), likely related to fear learning and memory dysfunction (reviewed in 27, 28). Network relationships appear important to treatment response, and we previously identified connectivity patterns that predicted PTSD improvement with TMS (29).
In this study, we conducted the first sham-controlled trial of iTBS for PTSD. We hypothesized that stimulation would be acceptable and efficacious, would reduce symptoms of PTSD, and would improve social and occupational function and quality of life. Furthermore, we hypothesized that efficacy could be predicted using neural networks—specifically, that greater negative (i.e., anticorrelated) connectivity between the salience network/executive control network and default mode network would be associated with improvement in PTSD symptoms.
Methods
Under institutional review board approval, participants were recruited from the Providence VA Medical Center from May 2016 to December 2017. Fifty-six participants provided written informed consent, and of these, 50 underwent randomized treatment assignment (Figure 1). The principal inclusion criteria were chronic PTSD by DSM-5 criteria (assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5, which was also used for comorbidity assessment), trauma exposure (assessed using the Life Events Checklist [30]), age between 18 and 70 years, and, if applicable, being symptomatic despite stable treatment (medications and/or psychotherapy) for at least 6 weeks before undergoing the study procedures. Ongoing treatment was allowed to continue unchanged during the entirety of participation.
FIGURE 1. CONSORT flow diagram for a study of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) for PTSDa
a SAE=serious adverse event.
Participants were excluded if they had implanted devices (unless MRI safe) or metal above the upper thoracic spine; pregnancy risk; lifetime history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury (using VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines); current unstable medical conditions; or a history of seizure or other significant neurological disorders, CNS tumors, stroke, or cerebral aneurysm. Other exclusions were primary psychotic disorders, bipolar I disorder, current moderate or severe substance use disorders, or active suicidality.
Randomization and Blinding
Randomization was performed by a study member uninvolved with TBS delivery, in a 1:1 design stratified by PTSD symptom severity and sex. Because the TMS system used separate coils for active and sham stimulation, a staff member uninvolved in treatment delivery or rating scale administration selected the coil for each participant. Blinding was assessed by asking participants to guess their group assignment after the double-blind phase.
Intervention
Using a modified parallel-group double-blind sham-controlled design, we delivered iTBS to the right DLPFC (80% active motor threshold, 1,800 pulses, 9.5 minutes; based on previous TBS studies [31]). The right DLPFC was chosen because meta-analyses have indicated that right-sided higher-frequency stimulation may yield larger PTSD symptom reduction (12, 13), and high-frequency TMS administered to this location can reduce amygdala activation to threatening stimuli (32).
After randomization, active motor threshold was determined (i.e., stimulator output sufficient to induce movement in the contralateral hand >50% of the time), and participants received sham-controlled iTBS daily for 10 business days (intent-to-treat sample, N=25 per group) using a Magstim Rapid 2+1 system (Magstim, Whitland, U.K.). All participants could receive another 10 sessions of unblinded iTBS, to explore the effects of a greater number of iTBS sessions on outcomes. The right DLPFC was found using scalp measurements to place the coil over F4 (modified from reference 33); measurements were checked and monitored at every session to ensure accurate placement.
Statistical Analysis
Our primary outcome measures were acceptability, measured using retention rates and participant reports, followed by changes in PTSD symptoms, using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS) (34). Social and occupational function was measured using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (35) and quality of life using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (36). Blinded raters administered all clinician-administered scales. Self-reported PTSD and depressive symptoms were measured using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL) (37) and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report (IDS-SR) (38), respectively. Primary clinical outcomes were measured using analysis of variance (39) to compare groups at the end of the 2-week double-blind phase. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputations (N=20 imputations, or maximum likelihood parameter estimation in mixed models) (40). Follow-up analyses used a general linear mixed-effect model (41) with piecewise time effects (42) to capture the effect of active treatment on outcomes, testing whether active stimulation had superior outcomes compared with sham stimulation up to a 1-month follow-up visit. Linear parameter constraints were used to capture comparable time on active treatment among those in the group initially assigned to active stimulation and those initially assigned to sham stimulation who converted to active stimulation during the unblinded period. This approach permitted inference regarding the effect of cumulative “dose” of iTBS on clinical outcomes observed at 1 month. Statistical analyses were performed in Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Tex.). Estimated sample size was informed by previous sham-controlled TMS PTSD studies and meta-analyses (12).
Results are summarized using effect size statistics capturing mean differences standardized to a pooled baseline standard deviation (Cohen’s d) (43) to reflect estimated change due to treatment (at a particular time point). Data were analyzed in an intent-to-treat fashion, with the intent-to-treat sample defined as participants who underwent randomized treatment assignment and received at least one iTBS session.
Safety
Safety was assessed at every treatment visit by spontaneous adverse event reports coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, plus a treatment satisfaction form (44) administered at endpoint. As in previous TMS research, adverse events were analyzed if they occurred in the active treatment group at a rate of 5% or more and at least twice the rate for sham stimulation (7).
Neuroimaging
Resting-state functional MRI was acquired on a convenience subset of participants (N=26) to identify predictors of improvement. All imaging was obtained less than 5 days before baseline. Neuroimaging data were acquired using a 3-T MRI scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) and a 32-channel head coil. Imaging acquisition included high-resolution (1 mm3) anatomical images and 8 minutes of standard resting-state echo-planar imaging. See the online supplement for details on acquisition, preprocessing, quality control, and motion (used in first- and second-level analyses). MRI data processing used the CONN Functional Toolbox (45) unless otherwise indicated.
Neuroimaging analyses examined predictors of response to active stimulation. This was based on our mixed-model analysis for clinical outcomes, using clinical change observed during the first 2 weeks in participants initially assigned to active stimulation (N=15) and clinical changes observed when patients initially assigned to sham stimulation received active iTBS (N=11). Because previous research indicated that within- and between-network connectivity predicted clinical improvement in PTSD (29) and depressive symptoms (46–49), we took a focused region-of-interest approach to neuroimaging data analyses. This included a 38-region matrix inclusive of the default mode network, executive control network, salience network, and prefrontal areas implicated in PTSD (described in the online supplement ) to examine connectivity patterns predictive of clinical improvement. Only results that survived false discovery rate correction (50) are reported; results were robust to post hoc sensitivity tests for data quality and sex unless otherwise stated.
Results
Randomization resulted in groups balanced on demographic variables and symptom severity (Table 1) that reflected the veteran population. Baseline PTSD scores were in the moderate range. Nearly all (90%) participants met criteria for comorbid depression, and over half had substance use disorders. Baseline ratings also indicated low social/occupational function and poor quality of life. Trauma exposure was multifactorial (see Table S1 in the online supplement ).
| Measure | Active iTBS Group (N=25) | Sham iTBS Group (N=25) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic variables | ||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Age (years) | 48 | 13 | 53 | 12 |
| N | % | N | % | |
| Female | 5 | 20 | 3 | 12 |
| Race | ||||
| White | 22 | 88 | 20 | 80 |
| African American | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Multiracial | 2 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Hispanic origin | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Education | ||||
| High school diploma or less | 3 | 12 | 6 | 24 |
| Trade or vocational degree | 3 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Some college | 11 | 4 | 7 | 28 |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 4 | 16 | 11 | 44 |
| Employment status | ||||
| Full-time | 6 | 24 | 4 | 16 |
| Part-time | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| Unemployed | 10 | 40 | 9 | 36 |
| Retired | 6 | 24 | 9 | 36 |
| Service-connected disability (mental health) | 14 | 56 | 17 | 68 |
| Military history and branch | ||||
| Army | 8 | 32 | 8 | 32 |
| Navy | 8 | 32 | 6 | 24 |
| Marines | 2 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Air Force | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| PTSD symptom severity | ||||
| Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 score | 47.9 | 10.0 | 47.4 | 10.6 |
| PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 score | 49.4 | 9.4 | 50.0 | 11.4 |
| Social/occupational function and quality of life | ||||
| Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale score | 44.3 | 13.1 | 44.6 | 14.9 |
| Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (general quality of life index) | 2.5 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 0.7 |
| Depressive symptom severity | ||||
| Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report score | 42.8 | 11.9 | 39.2 | 11.5 |
| N | % | N | % | |
| Psychiatric comorbidity | ||||
| Major depressive disorder | 23 | 92 | 22 | 88 |
| Bipolar II disorder, most recent episode depressed | 2 | 8 | 3 | 12 |
| Substance use disorder, mild severity | 16 | 64 | 11 | 44 |
| Opioid use disorder | 6 | 24 | 5 | 20 |
| Prior brain stimulation | ||||
| Transcranial magnetic stimulation | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Electroconvulsive therapy | 2 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Mild traumatic brain injury | 7 | 28 | 5 | 20 |
| Psychiatric history | ||||
| Suicide attempt(s) | 6 | 24 | 6 | 24 |
| Inpatient hospitalization(s) | 13 | 52 | 15 | 64 |
a
For race, ethnicity, employment status, and military history and branch, totals do not equal 100% because of participant nonresponse.
Clinical Outcomes
High retention rates indicated acceptability of the treatments; only three participants (two in the sham stimulation group, one in the active stimulation group) withdrew during the double-blind phase (see Figure 1). Participants were unable to accurately guess their group assignment (χ2=1.43, p=0.49). At the end of the 2-week double-blind phase, active stimulation compared with sham stimulation produced statistically significant improvement on the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (d=0.39, p=0.04). Although active stimulation was not statistically superior on the CAPS (d=−0.12, p=0.61) and the PCL, the effect size on the PCL was clinically meaningful (d=−0.34, p=0.31). We also observed superiority on depressive symptom improvement that approached a medium effect size but was not significant (d=−0.45, p=0.07) (Table 2).
| Sham iTBS Group | Active iTBS Group | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Two Weeks | Baseline | Two Weeks | |||||||
| Rating Scale | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Cohen’s d | p |
| Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 | 47.4 | 10.6 | 39.4 | 13.8 | 47.9 | 10.0 | 38.6 | 11.4 | –0.12 | 0.61 |
| PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 | 50.0 | 11.4 | 39.4 | 16.8 | 49.4 | 9.4 | 35.5 | 13.9 | –0.34 | 0.31 |
| Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale | 44.6 | 14.9 | 48.1 | 17.7 | 44.3 | 13.1 | 53.4 | 17.0 | 0.39 | 0.04 |
| Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire | 2.6 | 0.7 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.16 | 0.46 |
| Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report | 39.2 | 11.5 | 33.5 | 14.3 | 42.8 | 11.9 | 31.3 | 14.8 | –0.45 | 0.07 |
Mixed-model analyses, which included data from the unblinded phase, found clinically meaningful superiority of active over sham iTBS on most outcome measures (Table 3). Active stimulation was associated with statistically significant reduction in PTSD on the CAPS (d=−0.74, p<0.001) and PCL (d=−0.63, p<0.001). Superiority was also found on depressive symptoms (d=−0.47, p<0.001) and social and occupational function (d=0.93, p<0.001). Improvements occurred within the first week of active stimulation and were sustained with minimal additional change (i.e., |d| loss/gain <0.2 through follow-up), except on the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, which improved over time (Table 3). We observed statistically significant, but likely clinically irrelevant, improvement on the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (all changes in d <0.1). When we explored outcomes across the two groups, participants initially assigned to active stimulation (i.e., received a total of 4 weeks of stimulation) demonstrated superior results. For example, using a reduction of at least 12 points on the CAPS as the threshold for clinical meaningful results (51), 67% of those initially assigned to sham stimulation achieved this outcome at 1 month, compared with 81% of those initially assigned to active stimulation (p<0.001, NNT=7).
| First Week of Active iTBS | Second Week of Active iTBS, (and/or Effects of Additional Active iTBS) | Loss or Gain Through 1 Month | Net Change up to 1 Month | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating Scale | Cohen’s d | p | Cohen’s d | p | Cohen’s d | p | Cohen’s d | p |
| Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 | –0.59 | <0.001 | –0.16 | 0.12 | –0.74 | <0.001 | ||
| PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 | –0.41 | <0.001 | –0.16 | 0.20 | –0.06 | 0.58 | –0.63 | <0.001 |
| Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale | 0.60 | <0.001 | 0.33 | <0.001 | 0.93 | <0.001 | ||
| Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire | 0.02 | 0.005 | 0.00 | 0.94 | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||
| Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report | –0.36 | <0.001 | –0.08 | 0.47 | 0.04 | 0.70 | –0.47 | <0.001 |
a
Results are from a linear mixed-effect model to capture the common effect of active treatment in participants initially assigned to receive active treatment and those converted to active treatment in the unblinded phase. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire were obtained at the end of every 2 weeks, whereas the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report were obtained at the end of every week. For Cohen’s d, negative values represent reductions in the scale value, and positive values represent increases.
Safety
Side effects were consistent with previous TMS studies; the most commonly reported adverse events were treatment site discomfort and headache. There were no group differences in reporting (all p values >0.1), although treatment site discomfort occurred more frequently in the active stimulation group (N=6 [24%], compared with none in the sham stimulation group). Three serious adverse events occurred. One participant (who never underwent randomized assignment) could not tolerate MRI procedures, and one participant in the sham stimulation group exhibited emergent homicidal ideation. A third participant, originally assigned to sham stimulation, required hospitalization for suicidality during the follow-up period. There were no seizures.
Neuroimaging Results
Neuroimaging analyses indicated that baseline resting-state functional connectivity predicted clinical changes with active iTBS. Superior PTSD improvement was associated with stronger within–default mode network functional connectivity (Figure 2A) and stronger anticorrelated (greater negative) connectivity between the default mode network and externally oriented networks (Figure 2B).
FIGURE 2. Neuroimaging predictors of symptom improvement in veterans with PTSD treated with intermittent theta-burst stimulationa
a Baseline resting-state functional connectivity predicted clinical changes with active stimulation; superior improvement was associated with stronger within–default mode network functional connectivity (panel A) and stronger anticorrelated (greater negative) connectivity between the default mode and externally oriented networks (panel B). Images show brain location (top left), followed by connectome-style representation (right). Box plots show examples of the direction of effects. In the box plot in panel A, greater pretreatment connectivity between the left anterior temporal cortex to medial prefrontal cortex predicted superior improvement compared with less connectivity between these two regions. Conversely, in panel B, greater anticorrelated connectivity between the temporoparietal junction and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex observed at baseline predicted superior improvement. Ant DLPFC=anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; ATC=anterior temporal cortex; DLPFC=dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; DMPFC=dorsomedial prefrontal cortex; L=left; LTC=lateral temporal cortex; MPFC=medial prefrontal cortex; TPJ=temporoparietal junction; R=right; RS=retrosplenial cortex.
Significant within–default mode network findings included connectivity between the dorsomedial PFC (DMPFC) and the right temporoparietal junction, and between the MPFC and the left anterior temporal cortex (all false discovery rate–corrected p values <0.05). When we analyzed CAPS scores, the same pattern held but fell short of significance after controlling for data quality (false discovery rate–corrected p=0.06).
Significant cross-network relationships included greater negative connectivity between the left DLPFC (executive control network) and default mode network elements of the temporoparietal junction and anterior temporal cortex, and between the right lateral temporal cortex (default mode network) and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex/opercularis (all false discovery rate–corrected p values <0.05). These relationships were no longer significant when covarying for sex (false discovery rate–corrected p values >0.1).
Improvement in depressive symptoms was also associated with stronger connectivity within the default mode network–DMPFC network. Connectivity between the right temporoparietal junction and right anterior temporal cortex was associated with improvement (false discovery rate–corrected p<0.01). Depressive symptom improvement was also associated with greater anticorrelated connectivity between the default mode network and the DLPFC, and between the executive control network and the insula (all false discovery rate–corrected p values <0.05). Subgenual anterior cingulate cortex–to–DLPFC connectivity was not predictive of improvement (PTSD or depression), even with lenient statistical thresholds.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study indicating utility for iTBS in PTSD, with neuroimaging biomarkers predicting clinical improvement. While our results require replication, they are promising. At 2 weeks, active stimulation improved social and occupational function and had indications of efficacy on depressive and self-reported PTSD symptoms; at 1 month (inclusive of data from the unblinded phase), active stimulation was superior across all outcome measures, including self-reported and clinician-reported PTSD symptoms, social and occupational function, and depressive symptoms. Treatment was well tolerated, and side effects were consistent with previous reports. Although one-quarter of participants who received active iTBS reported treatment site discomfort, compared with none in the sham treatment group, headaches were evenly distributed between the treatment groups. Both serious adverse events in the intent-to-treat sample occurred in participants assigned to sham stimulation.
The majority of clinical benefit occurred in the first week of active stimulation. This was unexpected, as previous TMS and iTBS studies in depression indicated that efficacy increased over time with more treatment sessions (e.g., 7, 52). This suggests that the ideal duration or “dose” of stimulation is an important area of future TBS research; for example, our data suggest that while improvements may occur early, durable clinical effects require greater accumulated exposure to stimulation. We also observed different time courses between depressive and PTSD symptom reduction; depression improved earlier, whereas PTSD improvements were of a larger magnitude by study endpoint. This suggests that future research should evaluate whether change in one symptom domain predicts subsequent change in another and how these trajectories relate to quality of life and functional outcomes.
Neuroimaging analyses demonstrated a role of within- and between-network connectivity in treatment prediction; positive response was associated with increased connectivity within the default mode network and increased negative connectivity between networks. For quality control, we evaluated those participants who received active stimulation only and found comparable results. Within–default mode network connectivity consistently involved memory-related subsystems in the medial temporal lobe. Memory dysfunction is a clinical hallmark of PTSD, and recent research indicates that TMS can modulate memory formation (53), thus demonstrating the need for further investigation into the interaction between stimulation and memory systems in PTSD.
These results are consistent with a recent report associating greater default mode network functional segregation and reduced PTSD severity (54), and they are broadly consistent with the idea that patients who have network architecture that more resembles healthy individuals have superior responses to TMS for depression (48, 55). Our findings, among others, suggest that neural markers of network integrity may be a near-term biomarker of stimulation response, regardless of the technology used or the treated diagnosis. Studies comparing TMS and iTBS (ideally compared with medications and psychotherapy) are needed to identify intervention-specific biomarkers of improvement.
Of note, we did not find that subgenual anterior cingulate–to–DLPFC connectivity predicted clinical improvement. This was unexpected given the comorbid depression in our sample; previous imaging studies of TMS for depression have often, but not always, found subgenual anterior cingulate–DLPFC connectivity to predict TMS response (e.g., 56; reviewed in 55). Yet we observed conceptually similar results, such that increased negative connectivity between the default mode network and executive control network (i.e., networks inclusive of the subgenual anterior cingulate and DLPFC) predicted superior outcomes.
Parameter selection was guided by the literature at the time of trial design and reflected an intentionally conservative first use of iTBS in PTSD. Recent findings from a study of iTBS for depression using higher motor thresholds (52) suggested that greater energy may improve efficacy. That study also used a smaller number of pulses per session, reasoning that more stimulation yields an inhibitory effect (at least in the motor cortex) (57). Whether the use of fewer pulses per session, delivered to nonmotor cortex, has an impact on efficacy remains an important question for future TMS research; the present study should be placed in the context of a wider need for systematic study of stimulation parameters.
Limitations of this study include its modest sample size and the limitations inherent to a demographically homogeneous patient population. Although PTSD in veterans is often associated with combat, our participants reported a wide range of trauma, and all demonstrated comorbid depressive symptoms. While this study demonstrates the use of iTBS in a real-world patient sample, we cannot conclude whether the observed effects are uniquely attributable to stimulation or augmentation of ongoing treatments or whether specific medications or trauma exposure definitively affected outcomes (see the online supplement ). Direct comparisons of acceptability of iTBS compared with standard TMS were beyond the scope of this initial iTBS PTSD study. We used scalp-based measurements to place the TMS coil, and neuronavigation might have improved results. Nonspecific clinical effects were likely unequally distributed across the blinded and unblinded phases, favoring unblinded outcomes in mixed-model analyses; longer prospective blinded studies of iTBS are clearly needed. Neuroimaging was obtained in a convenience subset, and we evaluated only regions or networks identified in previous studies, an approach that may have influenced the findings.
In summary, this first study of iTBS for PTSD demonstrated feasibility and preliminary efficacy on clinical symptoms and social and occupational function. Neuroimaging revealed predictors of clinical improvement and underscored the role of default mode network connectivity. This study reflects an important step forward in the use of TMS in disorders other than major depression and demonstrates the broader potential of brain stimulation for patients suffering from psychiatric disorders.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Causey Dunlap, B.S., and Marguerite Bowker, R.N., for their assistance with study procedures.
Footnotes
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02769312.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ajp.2019.18101160.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 141.82 KB
References
1.
Shalev A, Liberzon I, Marmar C: Post-traumatic stress disorder. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2459–2469
2.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
3.
Yehuda R, Hoge CW, McFarlane AC, et al: Post-traumatic stress disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2015; 1:15057
4.
Kessler RC: Posttraumatic stress disorder: the burden to the individual and to society. J Clin Psychiatry 2000; 61(suppl 5):4–12
5.
Watts BV, Schnurr PP, Mayo L, et al: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2013; 74:e541–e550
6.
O’Reardon JP, Solvason HB, Janicak PG, et al: Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62:1208–1216
7.
George MS, Lisanby SH, Avery D, et al: Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010; 67:507–516
8.
Yesavage JA, Fairchild JK, Mi Z, et al: Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on treatment-resistant major depression in US veterans: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:884–893
9.
Philip NS, Ridout SJ, Albright SE, et al: 5-Hz Transcranial magnetic stimulation for comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression. J Trauma Stress 2016; 29:93–96
10.
Kozel FA, Motes MA, Didehbani N, et al: Repetitive TMS to augment cognitive processing therapy in combat veterans of recent conflicts with PTSD: a randomized clinical trial. J Affect Disord 2018; 229:506–514
11.
Carpenter LL, Conelea C, Tyrka AR, et al: 5 Hz Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder comorbid with major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2018; 235:414–420
12.
Karsen EF, Watts BV, Holtzheimer PE: Review of the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder. Brain Stimul 2014; 7:151–157
13.
Berlim MT, Van Den Eynde F: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for treating posttraumatic stress disorder: an exploratory meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trials. Can J Psychiatry 2014; 59:487–496
14.
Daskalakis ZJ: Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: when less may be more. Brain 2014; 137:1860–1862
15.
Huang YZ, Edwards MJ, Rounis E, et al: Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuron 2005; 45:201–206
16.
Larson J, Munkácsy E: Theta-burst LTP. Brain Res 2015; 1621:38–50
17.
Capocchi G, Zampolini M, Larson J: Theta burst stimulation is optimal for induction of LTP at both apical and basal dendritic synapses on hippocampal CA1 neurons. Brain Res 1992; 591:332–336
18.
Patel R, Spreng RN, Shin LM, et al: Neurocircuitry models of posttraumatic stress disorder and beyond: a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012; 36:2130–2142
19.
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, et al: A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:676–682
20.
Miller EK, Cohen JD: An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001; 24:167–202
21.
Uddin LQ: Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 2015; 16:55–61
22.
Koch SB, van Zuiden M, Nawijn L, et al: Aberrant resting-state brain activity in posttraumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Depress Anxiety 2016; 33:592–605
23.
Bluhm RL, Williamson PC, Osuch EA, et al: Alterations in default network connectivity in posttraumatic stress disorder related to early-life trauma. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2009; 34:187–194
24.
DiGangi JA, Tadayyon A, Fitzgerald DA, et al: Reduced default mode network connectivity following combat trauma. Neurosci Lett 2016; 615:37–43
25.
Akiki TJ, Averill CL, Abdallah CG: A network-based neurobiological model of PTSD: evidence from structural and functional neuroimaging studies. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2017; 19:81
26.
Reuveni I, Bonne O, Giesser R, et al: Anatomical and functional connectivity in the default mode network of post-traumatic stress disorder patients after civilian and military-related trauma. Hum Brain Mapp 2016; 37:589–599
27.
Sheynin J, Liberzon I: Circuit dysregulation and circuit-based treatments in posttraumatic stress disorder. Neurosci Lett 2017; 649:133–138
28.
Fenster RJ, Lebois LAM, Ressler KJ, et al: Brain circuit dysfunction in post-traumatic stress disorder: from mouse to man. Nat Rev Neurosci 2018; 19:535–551
29.
Philip NS, Barredo J, van ’t Wout-Frank M, et al: Network mechanisms of clinical response to transcranial magnetic stimulation in posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2018; 83:263–272
30.
Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, et al: The Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5). Washington, DC, US Dept of Veterans Affairs, 2013. (https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/te-measures/life_events_checklist.asp)
31.
Li CT, Chen MH, Juan CH, et al: Efficacy of prefrontal theta-burst stimulation in refractory depression: a randomized sham-controlled study. Brain 2014; 137:2088–2098
32.
Baeken C, De Raedt R, Van Schuerbeek P, et al: Right prefrontal HF-rTMS attenuates right amygdala processing of negatively valenced emotional stimuli in healthy females. Behav Brain Res 2010; 214:450–455
33.
Beam W, Borckardt JJ, Reeves ST, et al: An efficient and accurate new method for locating the F3 position for prefrontal TMS applications. Brain Stimul 2009; 2:50–54
34.
Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, et al: The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Washington, DC, US Dept of Veterans Affairs, 2013 (https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-int/caps.asp)
35.
Morosini PL, Magliano L, Brambilla L, et al: Development, reliability, and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2000; 101:323–329
36.
Endicott J, Nee J, Harrison W, et al: Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull 1993; 29:321–326
37.
Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, et al: The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)–Standard. Washington, DC, US Dept of Veterans Affairs, 2013 (https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp)
38.
Rush AJ, Gullion CM, Basco MR, et al: The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): psychometric properties. Psychol Med 1996; 26:477–486
39.
Fisher RA: Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 1925
40.
Ware JH, Harrington D, Hunter DJ, et al: Missing data. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1353–1354
41.
Laird NM, Ware JH: Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982; 38:963–974
42.
Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, et al: Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th ed. Chicago, Irwin, 1996
43.
Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988
44.
Blatt SJ, Zuroff DC, Bondi CM, et al: When and how perfectionism impedes the brief treatment of depression: further analyses of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998; 66:423–428
45.
Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Nieto-Castanon A: Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect 2012; 2:125–141
46.
Fox MD, Buckner RL, White MP, et al: Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate. Biol Psychiatry 2012; 72:595–603
47.
Salomons TV, Dunlop K, Kennedy SH, et al: Resting-state cortico-thalamic-striatal connectivity predicts response to dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology 2014; 39:488–498
48.
Liston C, Chen AC, Zebley BD, et al: Default mode network mechanisms of transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression. Biol Psychiatry 2014; 76:517–526
49.
Taylor SF, Ho SS, Abagis T, et al: Changes in brain connectivity during a sham-controlled transcranial magnetic stimulation trial for depression. J Affect Disord 2018; 232:143–151
50.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 1995; 57:289–300
51.
Steenkamp MM, Litz BT, Hoge CW, et al: Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD: a review of randomized clinical trials. JAMA 2015; 314:489–500
52.
Blumberger DM, Vila-Rodriguez F, Thorpe KE, et al: Effectiveness of theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression (THREE-D): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018; 391:1683–1692
53.
Wang JX, Rogers LM, Gross EZ, et al: Targeted enhancement of cortical-hippocampal brain networks and associative memory. Science 2014; 345:1054–1057
54.
Akiki TJ, Averill CL, Wrocklage KM, et al: Default mode network abnormalities in posttraumatic stress disorder: a novel network-restricted topology approach. Neuroimage 2018; 176:489–498
55.
Philip NS, Barredo J, Aiken E, et al: Neuroimaging mechanisms of therapeutic transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 2018; 3:211–222
56.
Weigand A, Horn A, Caballero R, et al: Prospective validation that subgenual connectivity predicts antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation sites. Biol Psychiatry 2018; 84:28–37
57.
Gamboa OL, Antal A, Moliadze V, et al: Simply longer is not better: reversal of theta burst after-effect with prolonged stimulation. Exp Brain Res 2010; 204:181–187
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 11 October 2018
Revision received: 14 January 2019
Revision received: 18 March 2019
Revision received: 10 April 2019
Accepted: 30 April 2019
Published online: 24 June 2019
Published in print: November 01, 2019
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Philip has received grant support from Janssen, Neosync, and Neuronetics through clinical trial contracts and has served as an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Neuronetics. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
US Dept of Veterans Affairs: I21 RX002032, IK2 CX001824
Supported by U.S. Veterans Affairs grants I21 RX002032 and IK2 CX001824 and the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (RR&D) Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology at the Providence VA Medical Center.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).