Lithgow Brian J, Saha Chandan, Dastgheib Zeinab, Moussavi Zahra
Biomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Neurosci Insights. 2025 Mar 25;20:26331055251328355. doi: 10.1177/26331055251328355. eCollection 2025.
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) has been applied as an investigational therapy for Alzheimer's Disease (AD). The recent largest (N = 135) double-blind study with 6 months post-treatment follow-up investigating rTMS efficacy as a treatment for AD found about 72% of participants in each group of active and sham were positively responsive to rTMS (using Magstim AirFilm active and sham coils). Since the used sham coil produced about 25.3% of the peak active stimulus, it was hypothesized it could evoke a measurable response in AD patients. This study looks at the details of the above study's sham responses to determine why and how such a response might occur and how cerebrovascular symptomatology may have impacted that response. In the above-mentioned study, 90 and 45 patients were randomly assigned to active and sham groups, respectively. Those with modified Hachinski Ischemic Scores (HIS) below and above 2 were labeled AD and ADcvd, respectively. Analysis of the primary outcome measure ADAS-Cog score change from baseline to post-treatment and follow-ups showed the ADcvd in the sham group had a significantly ( = .034) greater improvement or less decline at post-treatment and follow-up sessions compared to the ADcvd in the active group. Additionally, the improvement of the ADcvd sham compared to those in the active group persisted longer. Also, there was a significant ( = .036) improvement for AD individuals in the active compared to AD sham stimulation group at 2-months post-treatment. Overall, the sham rTMS stimulus did evoke a measurable response which was more effective for ADcvd in sham than ADcvd in active support of a vascular mechanism likely linked to the shallower sham stimulus penetration.
重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)已被用作治疗阿尔茨海默病(AD)的一种研究性疗法。最近一项规模最大(N = 135)的双盲研究,对rTMS作为AD治疗方法的疗效进行了6个月的治疗后随访,发现每组接受真刺激和假刺激的参与者中约72%对rTMS有阳性反应(使用Magstim AirFilm真刺激和假刺激线圈)。由于使用的假刺激线圈产生的峰值真刺激约为25.3%,因此推测它可能会在AD患者中引发可测量的反应。本研究着眼于上述研究中假刺激反应的细节,以确定这种反应为何以及如何发生,以及脑血管症状可能如何影响了这种反应。在上述研究中,90名和45名患者分别被随机分配到真刺激组和假刺激组。改良哈金斯基缺血评分(HIS)低于2分和高于2分的患者分别被标记为AD和ADcvd。对主要结局指标从基线到治疗后及随访时的ADAS - Cog评分变化进行分析,结果显示,与真刺激组的ADcvd相比,假刺激组的ADcvd在治疗后和随访时改善更显著(P = 0.034)或下降更少。此外,与真刺激组相比,假刺激组ADcvd的改善持续时间更长。另外,在治疗后2个月时,真刺激组的AD个体与假刺激组相比有显著(P = 0.036)改善。总体而言,假rTMS刺激确实引发了可测量的反应,对于假刺激组中的ADcvd比真刺激组中的ADcvd更有效,这支持了一种可能与假刺激穿透较浅相关的血管机制。