Next Article in Journal
The Pathophysiology of Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhosis: Getting Deeper into Virchow’s Triad
Previous Article in Journal
Erythema Migrans-like COVID Vaccine Arm: A Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm11030798
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study

by
Tomoo Mano
1,2
1
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Nara Medical University, Nara 634-8521, Japan
2
Department of Neuromodulation and Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(3), 798; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030798
Submission received: 1 December 2021 / Revised: 24 January 2022 / Accepted: 29 January 2022 / Published: 1 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Neurology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is reportedly a potential tool to understand the neural network; however, the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cognitive function change remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the cognitive function changes by rTMS over the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We evaluated the feasibility of rTMS application for mild cognitive dysfunction in patients with AD in an open-label trial (UMIN000027013). An rTMS session involved 15 trains at 120% resting motor threshold on each side (40 pulses/train at 10 Hz). Efficacy outcome measures were changes from baseline in cognitive function, assessed based on the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Japanese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J), Behavioral and Psychological Symptom of Dementia, and Instrumental Activity of Daily Living scores. Sixteen patients with AD underwent five daily sessions of high-frequency rTMS over the bilateral DLPFC for 2 weeks. All participants completed the study; no major adverse effects were recorded. The MoCA-J score increased by 1.4 points (±0.15%) following 2 weeks of stimulation. At 1 month following rTMS cessation, all cognitive functional scores returned to the original state. Our findings suggest that the DLPFC plays an important role in the neural network in AD.

1. Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), which is the most common type of dementia, currently accounting for 60–80% of dementia cases, is neuropathologically characterized with amyloid-β as the major component of senile plaques and tau protein as the major component of neurofibrillary tangles. Amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) is a causative factor for cognitive impairment in AD [1]. Synaptic dysfunction can lead to a vicious cycle of aberrant neuroplasticity and amyloid deposition, resulting in AD progression. Considering the limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in cognitive disorders, the emergence of neuromodulation for brain function modification could result in the development of new treatment modalities. In recent years, new techniques for studying the human brain using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have emerged. Among these techniques, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can modulate cortical excitability and has potential therapeutic effects on cognition and behavior [2]. These effects are due to physiological modifications in the stimulated cortical tissue and associated circuits, and are based on the stimulation parameters. This study aimed to provide insights into the neural network of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in AD, and the findings of this research would aid in the treatment of cognitive disorders. Previous rTMS studies have reported encouraging results with significant improvement in cognitive function. Nevertheless, these studies have certain limitations: the techniques used were insufficiently standardized, and the stimulation sites have not been established. DLPFC is a candidate for the stimulation site. Therefore, further research is warranted to determine the underlying mechanisms of rTMS over the DLPFC in AD. In this study, we examined whether treatment would be easier with the application of the parameters of the treatment for depression, which have already been established.
Some studies have revealed that rTMS results in synaptic connection regulation, which correlates with better associative memory in AD. In the most common approach, rTMS is applied over a site of interest for several minutes. The induced effects outlive the period of stimulation, thus providing insight into the role of the specific stimulated brain region in plasticity and behavior. One study reported that rTMS improved the enhanced gamma oscillations in Aβ-injected patients [3]. Research scientists have been investigating the benefits of this technology for the treatment of depression, neuropathic pain, Parkinson’s disease, and AD. rTMS is a modality that temporarily alters cortical excitability in a manner that persists beyond the stimulation session itself, and thus it can be considered a potential treatment approach for improving cognition in AD. A recent review of NIBS studies concluded that rTMS improves cognition in patients with AD [4]. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the improvement of cognitive function remain unclear.
This study aimed to explore the cognitive function changes by rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and its relationship and compliance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

Patients were enrolled between December 2017 and March 2019. We evaluated 21 patients with AD for eligibility and excluded four of the 21 patients who could not visit the hospital consecutively for 2 weeks, and one patient withdrew consent before stimulation. Thus, we enrolled a total of 16 patients. All the patients were tested at the Osaka University Hospital.
The inclusion criteria were (1) clinical diagnosis of AD, which was maintained for more than one year following the diagnosis; (2) Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of less than 25 points; (3) current or previous intake of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, but with no satisfactory effect; (4) age between 20 and 85 years; and (5) consent provided in a document regarding participation in this clinical study. The exclusion criteria were (1) severe cognitive dysfunction (MMSE score of <13); (2) severe aphasia, agnosia, and apraxia; (3) serious mental disorder; (4) suicidal tendencies; (5) past history of epilepsy attack; (6) use of implantable heart stimulation and assistance devices such as pacemakers; (7) use of a deep brain stimulation device; (8) implanted metal device in the head (except the titanium product); (9) pregnancy; (10) unanswered questionnaires; or (11) having received an intervention in other clinical trials or a clinical trial within six months before the agreement acquisition.
To avoid the effect of other medical treatments when evaluating the effectiveness and safety of pure rTMS, all the participants were prohibited from changes and additions to their medication, including memantine, donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and any unapproved drugs, during the study period.

2.2. Intervention

On the first stimulation day, the interventional medical doctors set the motor hotspot area that elicited the most prominent muscle twitch in the left upper limbs. The resting motor threshold (RMT), defined as the minimum intensity that induced a visible muscle twitch, was measured, which corresponded to the RMT-measured adopted muscle twitches. The stimulation targets were locations in the bilateral DLPFC. After determining the hotspot and RMT, we defined the DLPFC area 5 cm forward along the scalp from the motor hotspot area [5]. The initial treatment was performed on the right side and subsequently on the left side. MagPro X100 (MagVenture, Farum, Denmark) was used as the rTMS machine. An rTMS session involved 15 trains at 120% RMT on each side (40 pulses/train at 10 Hz; inter-train interval of 26 s). The maximum rTMS intensity was 67% of the maximum stimulator output. The patients received five sessions daily for 2 weeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety.

2.3. Baseline Evaluation and Outcome Measures

The patients underwent detailed medical history-taking, physical examination, and head magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. All the patients were assessed for 30 min before the first intervention period (T1), 2 weeks following T1 (T2), and 6 weeks following T1 (T3). The assessor completed several cognitive function assessments and questionnaires of the patients and their caregivers (T0–T3).
The efficacy outcome measures were changes from baseline in the evaluated cognitive function, such as the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), MMSE, Japanese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) scores.

2.4. MMSE

MMSE is a widely used cognitive screening test [6] and a measure of global cognition, which includes assessments of orientation to time and place, immediate recall, short-term verbal memory, calculation, language, and construction ability. Scored out of 30, the MMSE is used to describe cognitive impairment severity. A cutoff of 25 points on the MMSE is used to detect cognitive impairment [7].

2.5. ADAS-Cog

The ADAS-Cog is a validated assessment of cognitive performance in patients with mild-to-moderate AD, and is the most widely used primary outcome measure of treatment efficacy in clinical trials of AD [8]. Its scores range from 0 to 70, with higher values indicating a higher degree of deficit. The ADA-Cog is divided into three groups: (a) memory and new learning (0–35), (b) language (0–25), and (c) praxis (0–10). ADAS-cog is also a very commonly used and preferred cognitive task in drug trials because it is very sensitive compared to MMSE.

2.6. MoCA-J

It includes attention and concentration, executive functions, memory, language, visuospatial abilities, abstract thinking, calculating abilities, and orientation. To counterbalance the effect of lower education, one point was added to the final score of those individuals with <12 years of education. The cutoff value of the MoCA in the Chinese population was ≥26 with education periods of 12 years. The final score was the actual measured score plus one point. A recent report revealed that the MoCA better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) than the MMSE [9]. MoCA executive tasks are more sensitive than MMSE executive tasks in detecting executive dysfunction [10].

2.7. Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q)

NPI-Q evaluates 10 neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with dementia [11]. Caregivers were asked to provide information regarding both the frequency and severity of each symptom. The total subscale score was calculated by multiplying the severity and frequency, with higher scores indicating severe neuropsychiatric symptoms. The reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the NPI were confirmed [12].

2.8. IADL

IADL is the assessment of the family members who completed the Lawton and Brody scales. IADL evaluates participants’ performance based on eight separate categories: (A) ability to use the telephone, (B) shopping, (C) food preparation, (D) housekeeping, (E) laundry, (F) mode of transportation, (G) responsibility for own medications, and (H) ability to handle finances. E, G, and H have three questionnaires; A, B, and C have four; and D and F have five, with higher scores indicative of a high performance [13].

2.9. Follow-Up Evaluations

Patients visited us 2 weeks before the study and at 0, 2, and 6 weeks after the study. Each evaluated item was initiated following baseline assessment (T1). The interventional assessment staff asked the participants and proxies for any adverse symptoms and their physical conditions at every visit. The 6-week evaluations were conducted following 42.2 ± 4.5 days of training (range 35–50 days).

2.10. Statistical Analyses

All the data are presented as means ± standard deviations. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution. Longitudinal changes in the parameters between baseline and post-rTMS (week 2) were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, where the null hypothesis was that there was no change between the baseline and the end of the 2-week follow-up. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and correlation coefficients (r) greater than 0.40 were considered to be strong. Calculations were performed using the statistical software package SPSS 23.0 J (SPSS Japan, Tokyo, Japan).

3. Results

3.1. Clinical Background Characteristics of Patients with AD

The clinical characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. Mild to moderate cognitive dysfunction was observed in all participants. Three patients (P3, P5, and P6) had a history of examination of Aβ levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. All the participants completed the 2-week stimulation regimen.

3.2. Outcome Measures

The individual data during the study period are shown in Figure 1. The comparison between baseline and week 2 revealed that the MoCA-J score was significantly increased by 1.4 ± 2.4 (p < 0.05) with high-frequency (HF)-rTMS (Figure 1a). Consistent with this finding, a trend of improvement of the ADAS-Cog and MMSE scores, although not significantly (ADAS-Cog, 1.31 ± 2.8, p = 0.085; MMSE, 0.88 ± 2.1, p = 0.058) was observed. The memory items of the MMSE significantly increased (week 0, 4.7 ± 1.2; week 2, 5.4 ± 1.2; p < 0.05). These findings suggest that HF-rTMS over the bilateral DLPFC improves cognitive function in AD (Table 2).
However, the improvement in the cognitive function tended to be attenuated 6 weeks following the termination of HF-rTMS (Figure 1b,c), indicating that the effects of HF-rTMS do not persist following cessation. These findings suggest that the efficacy of HF-rTMS is transitory.
Conversely, no significant change was detected in the other items, such as the NPI and IADL (Table 2). The application of HF-rTMS for only 2 weeks did not change the ADL and caregiver burden.
An additional analysis was performed to detect the characteristics of responders to HF-rTMS; therefore, we examined the relationship with the value-improved ratio of MoCA-J. We defined a responded group as one that improved by two points or more of the MoCA-J, and a non-responded group as one that improved by one point or less. The responded group had a shorter duration of illness than the non-responded group (p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age (p = 0.450) or cognitive severity at baseline (MMSE; p = 0.295, ADAS-Cog; p = 0.469). In this study, four patients had agitation behavior at baseline (two patients, Grade 2; two patients, Grade 1) [14]. At week 2, three of these patients had a decrease in the severity of agitation; however, no significant changes in the grade were detected in the entire cohort.

3.3. Compliance

At the beginning of the first week of exercise, two patients reported difficulty in completing 30 min of consecutively maintaining the position. Our calculation, based on video data submitted by the participants, demonstrated that the participants actually underwent HF-rTMS for 8.8 ± 1.0 days (range 7–10 days) during the 2-week period. The participants completed 10,575.0 ± 1256.1 pulses (8400–12,000) of the second component of the HF-rTMS, with an overall compliance of 77.3 ± 11.1% (range 65.5–95.2%). Although not significant, a correlation between the compliance with HF-rTMS and changes in the MoCA-J from baseline was observed (Figure 1c).

3.4. Adverse Effect

No serious adverse events were observed in the present study. Scalp pain occurred in 10 participants during the intervention, but spontaneously disappeared. Mild muscle and neck pain occurred in one participant. No negative effects on motor function were observed.

4. Discussion

The overall goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of HF-rTMS on the bilateral DLPFC to alter the cognitive function in patients with AD. Many previous studies have indicated that rTMS could alter cognitive function [15]. The mechanism of neural circuit, which is still unclear, could be elucidated based on changes before and after brain stimulation.
DLPFC plasticity may be associated with working memory in AD. Furthermore, disruptions in the functional connectivity of the right DLPFC have been implicated in AD. Thus, enhancement of DLPFC function could be a potential therapeutic target in AD [16,17]. Cotelli et al. reported improved picture naming following the application of HF-rTMS to both the left and right DLPFC in clinical trials of rTMS in patients with AD [18,19]. Another study group observed improvements in cognitive function, activities of daily living, and depressive symptoms following the application of HF stimulation to both the left and right DLPFC on consecutive days. This study observed improvement only in the group that underwent HF stimulation. No cognitive improvements were observed in the group with sham stimulation and that with low-frequency stimulation. A subgroup analysis based on severity revealed greater improvements in patients with mild-to-moderate AD than in those with severe AD [20]. A previous study, although presented in the form of a case report, reported that HF stimulation of the left DLPFC improved the episodic memory and language fluency [21]. HF-rTMS over the DLPFC in patients with AD improved cognitive function. This finding is also supported by those of a recent meta-analysis [22]. Considered together, the above findings indicate that the DLPFC could potentially represent the target of rTMS in AD; however, we have not yet identified the optimal stimulation sites in the bilateral DLPFC. rTMS over the DLPFC has been suggested to demonstrate actual effects on the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The interplay between the ACC and DLPFC has long been theorized to play a crucial role in the adjustment to cognitive conflicts [23]; therefore, disrupted connectivity in this network likely results in maladjusted cognitive processes. Combined rTMS/PET studies have demonstrated that HF-rTMS over the DLPFC increases the cerebral blood flow in the DLPFC and ACC [24], and modulates not only dopaminergic activity in the ACC and orbitofrontal cortex [25], but also serotonergic activity in the cingulate, insular, and parahippocampal cortices [26].
Previous studies on rTMS for AD have reported that it was effective in the group with mild cognitive dysfunction; however, in this study, the improvement group had a shorter duration of illness [27]. Nevertheless, early intervention unanimously results in therapeutic effects. Immunotherapies supposedly are the most effective when they are initiated at the early stages of the disease in animal models of AD [28].
Important functional connections within the synaptic connectivity are disrupted in AD, likely owing to Aβ plaque-associated neuronal toxicity. Synaptic dysfunction and neuronal excitatory–inhibitory imbalance have also been implicated. It is generally believed that memory problems with age and AD arise from synaptic dysfunction and declines in synaptic plasticity, particularly in the hippocampus [29]. One of the most widely used models for studying the molecular mechanisms of hippocampal synaptic plasticity is long-term potentiation (LTP), which is a rapid and remarkably persistent increase in the synaptic transmission elicited by brief patterns of afferent activity [30]. A growing body of experimental data support the idea that LTP is causally linked to the synaptic processes underlying memory. In particular, LTP in the hippocampus is considered a typical model of synaptic plasticity related to learning and memory. Some electrophysiological recording studies in AD animal models have reported that cortical plasticity is dampened by Aβ plaques, which have been shown to disrupt hippocampal LTP or be an electrophysiological correlate of learning and memory [1,31]. Recently, abnormalities in cortical plasticity have been demonstrated in patients with AD. An Aβ-induced toxicity rat model previously demonstrated that rTMS rescues the impairment of hippocampal LTP [32], and hippocampal CA1 LTP induced by theta burst stimulation was impaired in mice with AD compared to the normal model [33]. These improvements in neural plasticity were observed in conjunction with improved performance in the hippocampal-dependent measures of spatial cognition.
However, our study also demonstrated that the change in cognitive function did not last long, suggesting that the effect was minimal and peaked early, and that no additional improvement was possible with longer treatment. A previous basic study reported that NIBS resulted in initial transient activation that eventually subsided over the course of the pulse train [34]. Previous studies also reported that the hippocampal expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and vascular endothelial growth factor was increased after rTMS. In addition to these neurotrophic factors, rTMS reportedly increased the expression of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors and other proteins that facilitate synaptic plasticity (e.g., synaptophysin, post-synaptic density protein-95, cyclin-dependent kinase 5, and GAP43) [35].
Considering clinical therapy applications, daily or weekly stimulation for further consecutive days could improve the long-term effects of rTMS.
This study demonstrated a significant change in the MoCA-J, but not in MMSE and ADAS-Cog. MoCA-J is less comprehensively studied than MMSE. ADAS-Cog and MMSE are also very commonly used and preferred for cognitive tasks in drug trials because they are very sensitive compared to MoCA-J, with the MoCA-J scores remaining nearly stable over the course of a year. Therefore, we consider the change in MoCA-J to be meaningful. MoCA-J has a higher weight of executive function and attention than MMSE and ADAS-Cog. DLPFC has been suggested to affect executive function and attention. However, the open-label design of this study is considered a limitation, particularly because some of the endpoints rely on the clinician’s assessment and are therefore subject to potential bias. However, precautions were taken to reduce the bias associated with the design. The endpoint, for example, was evaluated by an independent assessor. This study implemented a single-center design with a small cohort, lack of sham control, and the levels of evidence were still low at this stage of development; therefore, quality clinical research is warranted in the future. Because this study also included individuals with MCI, a clinical study of only those with a pathological diagnosis of AD might be needed to consider the pathological mechanism.

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that DLPFC plays an important role in the neural network in AD. rTMS over DLPFC might be a promising therapeutic application that can change the cognitive function in AD.

Funding

This study was partly supported by the Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences from MEXT and AMED of Japan, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) (grant no. 17K17843), and the Magnetic Health Science Foundation and Health Labor Sciences Research Grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (project ID: UMIN000010277). All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. This protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Osaka University Medical Hospital.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (T.M.) upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the Department of Neuromodulation and Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine.

Conflicts of Interest

The author reports no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper. The Department of Neuromodulation and Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, is a joint research chair established with sponsorship by Teijin Pharma Limited (Tokyo, Japan).

References

  1. Hardy, J.; Selkoe, D.J. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease: Progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science 2002, 297, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Chervyakov, A.V.; Chernyavsky, A.Y.; Sinitsyn, D.O.; Piradov, M.A. Possible mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bai, W.; Liu, T.; Dou, M.; Xia, M.; Lu, J.; Tian, X. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reverses abeta1-42-induced dysfunction in gamma oscillation during working memory. Curr. Alzheimer. Res. 2018, 15, 570–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Weiler, M.; Stieger, K.C.; Long, J.M.; Rapp, P.R. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer’s disease: Are we ready? eNeuro 2020, 7, ENEURO.0235-19.2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fitzgerald, P.B.; Hoy, K.; McQueen, S.; Maller, J.J.; Herring, S.; Segrave, R.; Bailey, M.; Been, G.; Kulkarni, J.; Daskalakis, Z.J. A randomized trial of rTMS targeted with MRI based neuro-navigation in treatment-resistant depression. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009, 34, 1255–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Molloy, D.W.; Standish, T.I. A guide to the standardized Mini-Mental State Examination. Int. Psychogeriatr. 1997, 9, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mitchell, A.J. A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination in the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2009, 43, 411–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Herrmann, N.; Chau, S.A.; Kircanski, I.; Lanctôt, K.L. Current and emerging drug treatment options for Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review. Drugs 2011, 71, 2031–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ciesielska, N.; Sokołowski, R.; Mazur, E.; Podhorecka, M.; Polak-Szabela, A.; Kędziora-Kornatowska, K. Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection among people aged over 60? Meta-analysis. Psychiatr. Pol. 2016, 50, 1039–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fu, C.; Jin, X.; Chen, B.; Xue, F.; Niu, H.; Guo, R.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y. Comparison of the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Executive Subtests for detecting post-stroke cognitive impairment. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 2329–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cummings, J.L.; Mega, M.; Gray, K.; Rosenberg-Thompson, S.; Carusi, D.A.; Gornbein, J. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology 1994, 44, 2308–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Hirono, N.; Mori, E.; Ikejiri, Y.; Imamura, T.; Shimomura, T.; Hashimoto, M.; Yamashita, H.; Ikeda, M. Japanese Version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory—a scoring system for neuropsychiatric disturbance in dementia patients. No To Shinkei 1997, 49, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Hokoishi, K.; Ikeda, M.; Maki, N.; Nomura, M.; Torikawa, S.; Fujimoto, N.; Fukuhara, R.; Komori, K.; Tanabe, H. Interrater reliability of the physical self-maintenance scale and the instrumental activities of daily living scale in a variety of health professional representatives. Aging Ment. Health 2001, 5, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sessler, C.N.; Gosnell, M.S.; Grap, M.J.; Brophy, G.M.; O’Neal, P.V.; Keane, K.A.; Tesoro, E.P.; Elswick, R.K. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: Validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 166, 1338–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nardone, R.; Tezzon, F.; Höller, Y.; Golaszewski, S.; Trinka, E.; Brigo, F. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/repetitive TMS in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2014, 129, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kumar, S.; Zomorrodi, R.; Ghazala, Z.; Goodman, M.S.; Blumberger, D.M.; Cheam, A.; Fischer, C.; Daskalakis, Z.J.; Mulsant, B.H.; Pollock, B.G.; et al. Extent of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity and its association with working memory in patients with Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 74, 1266–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hata, M.; Kazui, H.; Tanaka, T.; Ishii, R.; Canuet, L.; Pascual-Marqui, R.D.; Aoki, Y.; Ikeda, S.; Kanemoto, H.; Yoshiyama, K.; et al. Functional connectivity assessed by resting state EEG correlates with cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s disease—an eLORETA Study. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2016, 127, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Cotelli, M.; Manenti, R.; Cappa, S.F.; Geroldi, C.; Zanetti, O.; Rossini, P.M.; Miniussi, C. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on action naming in patients with Alzheimer disease. Arch. Neurol. 2006, 63, 1602–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cotelli, M.; Manenti, R.; Cappa, S.F.; Zanetti, O.; Miniussi, C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation improves naming in Alzheimer disease patients at different stages of cognitive decline. Eur. J. Neurol. 2008, 15, 1286–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahmed, M.A.; Darwish, E.S.; Khedr, E.M.; El Serogy, Y.M.; Ali, A.M. Effects of low versus high frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cortical excitability in Alzheimer’s dementia. J. Neurol. 2012, 259, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liao, X.; Li, G.; Wang, A.; Liu, T.; Feng, S.; Guo, Z.; Tang, Q.; Jin, Y.; Xing, G.; McClure, M.A.; et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: A meta-analysis. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2015, 48, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cotelli, M.; Calabria, M.; Manenti, R.; Rosini, S.; Zanetti, O.; Cappa, S.F.; Miniussi, C. Improved language performance in Alzheimer disease following brain stimulation. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2011, 82, 794–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mansouri, F.A.; Tanaka, K.; Buckley, M.J. Conflict-induced behavioural adjustment: A clue to the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 10, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Paus, T.; Castro-Alamancos, M.A.; Petrides, M. Cortico-cortical connectivity of the human mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex and its modulation by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2001, 14, 1405–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cho, S.S.; Strafella, A.P. rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates dopamine release in the ipsilateral anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Sibon, I.; Strafella, A.P.; Gravel, P.; Ko, J.H.; Booij, L.; Soucy, J.P.; Leyton, M.; Diksic, M.; Benkelfat, C. Acute prefrontal cortex TMS in healthy volunteers: Effects on brain 11C-αMtrp trapping. Neuroimage 2007, 34, 1658–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sabbagh, M.; Sadowsky, C.; Tousi, B.; Agronin, M.E.; Alva, G.; Armon, C.; Bernick, C.; Keegan, A.P.; Karantzoulis, S.; Baror, E.; et al. Effects of a combined transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and cognitive training intervention in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2020, 16, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lemere, C.A.; Masliah, E. Can Alzheimer disease be prevented by amyloid-beta immunotherapy? Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2010, 6, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Morrison, J.H.; Baxter, M.G. The ageing cortical synapse: Hallmarks and implications for cognitive decline. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bliss, T.V.; Collingridge, G.L. A synaptic model of memory: Long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature 1993, 361, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Palop, J.J.; Mucke, L. Amyloid-beta-induced neuronal dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: From synapses toward neural networks. Nat. Neurosci. 2010, 13, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tan, T.; Xie, J.; Tong, Z.; Liu, T.; Chen, X.; Tian, X. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increases excitability of hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. Brain Res. 2013, 1520, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Huang, Z.; Tan, T.; Du, Y.; Chen, L.; Fu, M.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Song, W.; Dong, Z. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation ameliorates cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in APP23/PS45 mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Michelson, N.J.; Eles, J.R.; Vazquez, A.L.; Ludwig, K.A.; Kozai, T.D.Y. Calcium activation of cortical neurons by continuous electrical stimulation: Frequency dependence, temporal fidelity, and activation density. J. Neurosci. Res. 2019, 97, 620–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chou, Y.H.; Ton That, V.; Sundman, M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of rTMS effects on cognitive enhancement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 2020, 86, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 11 00798 g001 550
Figure 1. Changes in cognitive functional parameters in 16 participants with Alzheimer’s disease over 8 weeks. Individual changes in the outcome measures during the study are shown. The durations of the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) are indicated by red arrows. Weeks (W) from exercise initiation. Changes in cognitive function correlated with the sessions of HF-rTMS (a–c).
Figure 1. Changes in cognitive functional parameters in 16 participants with Alzheimer’s disease over 8 weeks. Individual changes in the outcome measures during the study are shown. The durations of the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) are indicated by red arrows. Weeks (W) from exercise initiation. Changes in cognitive function correlated with the sessions of HF-rTMS (a–c).
Jcm 11 00798 g001
Table
Table 1. Clinical data and cognitive scales of the participants at baseline.
Table 1. Clinical data and cognitive scales of the participants at baseline.
SexAgeDisease Duration DrugMMSEADAS-Cog
P1F714D1644
P2F755D, M2237
P3F662D2053
P4F613.G1921
P5F432D2124
P6M811D, M1718
P7M733G, M1521
P8F763D2346
P9F873D, M1836
P10M742G2552
P11F746R2425
P12M796D1935
P13F805D, M2518
P14F752M2531
P15F885R1932
P16F783D1647
Mean values 1 73.8 ± 10.63.4 ± 1.6 20.3 ± 3.433.8 ± 12.0
1 Data are shown as means ± standard deviations (ranges). MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADAS-Cog, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale; M, memantine; D, donepezil; G, galantamine; R, rivastigmine.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of the outcome measures at pre- and post-HF-rTMS in participants with AD (n = 16).
Table 2. Comparison of the outcome measures at pre- and post-HF-rTMS in participants with AD (n = 16).
Pre-HF-rTMSPost-HF-rTMSp-Value
MMSE20.0 ± 3.020.9 ± 3.00.115
ADAS-Cog34.0 ± 12.332.8 ± 11.70.085
MoCA-J19.1 ± 3.320.5 ± 3.9<0.05
NPI11.2 ± 16.310.8 ± 16.50.353
IADL3.0 ± 1.32.9 ± 1.20.669
Data are shown as means ± standard deviations (ranges). AD, Alzheimer’s disease; HF-rTMS, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADAS-Cog, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale; MoCA-J, Japanese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NPI, Neuropsychiatric Inventory; IADL, Instrumental Activity of Daily Living.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mano, T. Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030798

AMA Style

Mano T. Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(3):798. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030798

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mano, Tomoo. 2022. "Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 3: 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030798

APA Style

Mano, T. (2022). Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(3), 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030798

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop