Antidepressant efficacy of administering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) concurrently with psychological tasks or interventions: a scoping review and meta-analysis

Cristian G Giron,Alvin H. P. Tang,Minxia Jin,Georg S. Kranz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.28.24312728

2024-08-28

Abstract:Current approaches to optimize the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for depressive symptoms focus on personalizing targets and parameters. But what should occur during these three-to-forty-minute sessions remains under-investigated. Specific concerns include evidence suggesting brain state modulates the brain response to stimulation, and the potential to boost antidepressant efficacy by administering rTMS concurrently with psychological methods. Thus, conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis, per PRISMA-ScR guidelines, to pool studies that administered rTMS during psychological tasks or interventions. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 10 July 2024. Inclusion criteria: neuropsychiatric patients underwent rTMS; studies assessed depressive symptom severity; psychological tasks or interventions were administered during rTMS, or intentionally did not include a wash-out period. Of 8442 hits, 20 studies combined rTMS with aerobic exercise, bright light therapy, cognitive training or reactivation, psychotherapy, sleep deprivation, or a psychophysical task. Meta-analyses with random effects models pooled the efficacy of these combinations, based on change scores on depressive severity scales. The effect size was large and therapeutic for uncontrolled pretest-posttest comparisons (17 studies, 20 datasets, g=-1.91, SE=0.45, 95%CI= -2.80 to -1.03, p<0.01); medium when studies compared active combinations with sham rTMS plus active psychological methods (8 studies, g=-0.55, SE=0.14, 95%CI= -0.82 to -0.28, p<0.01); and non-significant when active combinations were compared with active rTMS plus sham psychological methods (4 studies, p= 0.96). These findings suggest that the antidepressant efficacy of combining rTMS with psychological methods is promising, but not an improvement over rTMS alone.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: **When repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is carried out simultaneously with psychological tasks or interventions, can it improve the antidepressant efficacy?**

Specifically, currently, the methods for optimizing rTMS against depressive symptoms mainly focus on personalized stimulation targets and parameters, but there is less research on what patients should do during the treatment process. Existing evidence shows that the brain state can affect the brain's response to stimulation. Therefore, by combining psychological tasks or interventions during rTMS, the antidepressant effect may be enhanced. To verify this hypothesis, the author conducted a systematic review and meta - analysis to evaluate the efficacy of combining rTMS with psychological tasks or interventions.

### Main research questions:
1. **Will the antidepressant effect of rTMS change due to the combination with psychological tasks or interventions?**
- Are there synergistic or antagonistic effects?

2. **Literature review and integration of future clinical and research paradigms: **
- Provide references for future clinical and experimental research, especially when designing studies that combine rTMS and psychological methods.

### Method overview:
- **Data sources**: PubMed and Web of Science databases, from the establishment of the databases to July 10, 2024.
- **Inclusion criteria**:
- The research subjects are patients with neuropsychiatric diseases with depressive symptoms.
- The research evaluated the severity of depressive symptoms.
- Psychological tasks or interventions are carried out simultaneously with rTMS, or the wash - out period is intentionally not included.

### Results:
- **Uncontrolled pre - post comparison**: 17 studies (20 data sets), with a large and significant effect size (g = - 1.91, SE = 0.45, 95% CI = - 2.80 to - 1.03, p < 0.01).
- **Compared with sham rTMS plus real psychological intervention**: 8 studies, with a medium effect size (g = - 0.55, SE = 0.14, 95% CI = - 0.82 to - 0.28, p < 0.01).
- **Compared with real rTMS plus sham psychological intervention**: 4 studies, with no significant difference (p = 0.96).

### Conclusions:
These results indicate that the combination of rTMS with psychological tasks or interventions has a certain antidepressant efficacy, but it is not significantly better than using rTMS alone. This provides an important reference for future research, especially in terms of how to design more effective treatment regimens.

Through this study, the author hopes to provide guidance for clinical practice and further research, especially when considering the influence of brain state on the efficacy of rTMS.