Li Hui, Wang Jijun, Li Chunbo, Xiao Zeping
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 600 Wanping Nan Road, Shanghai, China, 200030.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 17;2014(9):CD009083. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009083.pub2.
Panic disorder (PD) is a common type of anxiety disorder, characterized by unexpected and repeated panic attacks or fear of future panic attacks, or both. Individuals with PD are often resistant to pharmacological or psychological treatments and this can lead to the disorder becoming a chronic and disabling illness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can deliver sustained and spatially selective current to suppress or induce cortical excitability, and its therapeutic effect on pathological neuronal activity in people with PD has already been examined in case studies and clinical trials. However, a systematic review is necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of rTMS for PD.
To assess the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for panic disorder (PD) in adults aged 18 to 65 years, either as a monotherapy or as an augmentation strategy.
An electronic search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) was conducted to 19 February 2014. The CCDANCTR includes reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years). Additional searches were conducted in Psyndex and the main Chinese medical databases.
RCTs or quasi-randomised trials evaluating rTMS for PD in people aged between 18 and 65 years, either as a monotherapy or as an augmentation strategy.
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data and verified the data by cross-checking. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For binary data, we calculated fixed-effect model risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated fixed-effect model standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI.
Two RCTs (n = 40) were included in this review. The included trials compared rTMS with sham rTMS; no trials comparing rTMS with active treatments (electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy) met our inclusion criteria. Both included studies used 1 Hz rTMS over the right dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for two or four weeks as an augmentation treatment for PD. However, in both studies the data for the primary outcome, panic symptoms as measured by the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), were skewed and could not be pooled for a quantitative analysis. For this primary outcome one trial with 25 participants reported a superior effect of rTMS in reducing panic symptoms compared with sham rTMS (t = 3.04, df = 16.57, P = 0.007), but this trial had a 16% dropout rate and so was deemed as having a high risk of attrition bias. The other trial found that all 15 participants exhibited a reduction in panic symptoms but there was no significant difference between rTMS and sham rTMS (Mann Whitney U test, P > 0.05). Regarding the acceptability of rTMS, no significant difference was found between rTMS and sham rTMS in dropout rates or in reports of side effects. The quality of evidence contributing to this review was assessed as very low. Assessments of the risk of bias for the two studies were hampered by the lack of information provided in the reports, especially on methods of sequence generation and whether allocation concealment had been applied. Of the remaining sources of bias, we considered one of the studies to have been at risk of attrition bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only two RCTs of rTMS were available and their sample sizes were small. The available data were insufficient for us to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of rTMS for PD. Further trials with large sample sizes and adequate methodology are needed to confirm the effectiveness of rTMS for PD.
惊恐障碍(PD)是一种常见的焦虑症,其特征为意外且反复出现的惊恐发作,或对未来惊恐发作的恐惧,或两者皆有。患有惊恐障碍的个体通常对药物或心理治疗有抵抗性,这可能导致该疾病成为一种慢性致残性疾病。重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)可以传递持续且具有空间选择性的电流,以抑制或诱导皮层兴奋性,其对惊恐障碍患者病理性神经元活动的治疗效果已在病例研究和临床试验中得到检验。然而,有必要进行系统评价以评估rTMS治疗惊恐障碍的疗效和安全性。
评估重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)作为单一疗法或强化策略,对18至65岁成年人惊恐障碍(PD)的影响。
截至2014年2月19日,对Cochrane抑郁、焦虑和神经症综述小组对照试验注册库(CCDANCTR)进行了电子检索。CCDANCTR包括来自MEDLINE(1950年至今)、EMBASE(1974年至今)、PsycINFO(1967年至今)和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)(所有年份)的相关随机对照试验(RCT)报告。此外,还在Psyndex和主要中文医学数据库中进行了检索。
评估rTMS作为单一疗法或强化策略,对18至65岁人群惊恐障碍疗效的RCT或半随机试验。
两位综述作者独立选择研究、提取数据并通过交叉核对验证数据。分歧通过讨论解决。对于二分类数据,我们计算固定效应模型风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。对于连续数据,我们计算固定效应模型标准化均差(SMD)及其95%CI。
本综述纳入了两项RCT(n = 40)。纳入的试验将rTMS与假rTMS进行了比较;没有将rTMS与活性治疗(电休克治疗(ECT)、药物治疗、心理治疗)进行比较的试验符合我们的纳入标准。两项纳入研究均使用1Hz rTMS刺激右侧背外侧前额叶皮质(DLPFC),持续两周或四周,作为惊恐障碍的强化治疗。然而,在两项研究中,以惊恐障碍严重程度量表(PDSS)测量的主要结局——惊恐症状的数据均存在偏态,无法合并进行定量分析。对于这一主要结局,一项有25名参与者的试验报告称,与假rTMS相比,rTMS在减轻惊恐症状方面效果更佳(t = 3.04,自由度 = 16.57,P = 0.007),但该试验的失访率为16%,因此被认为存在较高的失访偏倚风险。另一项试验发现,所有15名参与者的惊恐症状均有所减轻,但rTMS与假rTMS之间无显著差异(曼-惠特尼U检验,P>0.05)。关于rTMS的可接受性,rTMS与假rTMS在失访率或副作用报告方面均未发现显著差异。本综述所依据证据的质量被评估为极低。两项研究的偏倚风险评估因报告中提供信息不足而受阻,尤其是序列生成方法以及是否采用了分配隐藏方面的信息。在其余偏倚来源中,我们认为其中一项研究存在失访偏倚风险。
仅有两项rTMS的RCT,且样本量较小。现有数据不足以让我们就rTMS治疗惊恐障碍的疗效得出任何结论。需要进一步开展样本量足够且方法适当的试验,以证实rTMS治疗惊恐障碍的有效性。