Joshi Shailja, Garg Shobit, Mishra Preeti, Dhyani Mohan, Tikka Sai Krishna
Department of Psychiatry, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, Shri Guru Ram Rai University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bibanagar, Telangana, India.
Indian J Psychiatry. 2024 Aug;66(8):744-750. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_56_24. Epub 2024 Aug 19.
There is a need to elucidate intermittent Theta burst stimulation (iTBS) as a novel treatment in persistent somatoform pain disorder (PSPD).
Twenty patients were randomly allocated to active iTBS (n = 11) and sham iTBS (n = 9) and received 10 iTBS sessions, 2 sessions per day, sequentially to primary motor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices for 5 days in a week. Each iTBS session comprised of 2 sec. per train of 10 bursts (3 pulses per burst at 50 Hz; total 30 pulses) and were given with a gap of 5 Hz, total of 20 trains, and 600 pulses. Visual Analogue Scale, Brief Pain Inventory and Global Pain Scale (GPS), Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale - Anxiety, World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale-brief, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index were applied at baseline, after last session, and at 2 weeks after last TBS session. Intention to treat analysis was conducted.
Both groups were comparable for baseline psychopathology scores including clinical variables like age (t = 0.865; = 0.398), duration of illness (t = 1.600; = 0.127), and motor threshold (t = 0.304; = 0.765). On repeated measures ANOVA, a significant within-group time effect for VAS, BPI-Severity, BPI-Interference, BDI - II, MADRS, HAM-A, and WHOQOL- BREF was found for active and sham TBS groups, respectively. GPS scores had significant within-group (active) * time interaction (F = 11.651; = .001; ηp2 = 0.538) and between-group * time interaction (F = 3.407; = 0.044; ηp2 = 0.159). However, between-group * time effect interaction was lost after covariance (F = 1.726; = 0.196; ηp2 = 0.110).
No major adverse effects were reported. Our pilot trial concludes that safe therapeutic efficacy of iTBS in PSPD is inconclusive. Lower total number of sessions along with small sample size may limit the study findings.
有必要阐明间歇性θ波爆发刺激(iTBS)作为持续性躯体形式疼痛障碍(PSPD)的一种新型治疗方法。
20名患者被随机分配到活性iTBS组(n = 11)和假iTBS组(n = 9),接受10次iTBS治疗,每天2次,依次刺激初级运动皮层和背外侧前额叶皮层,每周治疗5天。每次iTBS治疗包括每串10个脉冲(每个脉冲50Hz,3个脉冲;共30个脉冲)持续2秒,脉冲间隔5Hz,共20串,600个脉冲。在基线、最后一次治疗后以及最后一次TBS治疗后2周应用视觉模拟量表、简明疼痛量表和整体疼痛量表(GPS)、蒙哥马利和阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表、汉密尔顿焦虑评定量表 - 焦虑、世界卫生组织生活质量量表简表以及匹兹堡睡眠质量指数。进行意向性治疗分析。
两组在基线心理病理学评分方面具有可比性,包括年龄(t = 0.865;P = 0.398)、病程(t = 1.600;P = 0.127)和运动阈值(t = 0.304;P = 0.765)等临床变量。重复测量方差分析显示,活性和假TBS组在VAS、BPI - 严重程度、BPI - 干扰、BDI - II、MADRS、HAM - A和WHOQOL - BREF方面分别存在显著的组内时间效应。GPS评分在组内(活性)时间交互作用方面具有显著性(F = 11.651;P = 0.001;ηp2 = 0.538),在组间时间交互作用方面也具有显著性(F = 3.407;P = 0.044;ηp2 = 0.159)。然而,协方差分析后组间*时间效应交互作用消失(F = 1.726;P = 0.196;ηp2 = 0.110)。
未报告重大不良反应。我们的初步试验得出结论,iTBS在PSPD中的安全治疗效果尚无定论。治疗总次数较少以及样本量较小可能会限制研究结果。