创伤后应激障碍的神经调节疗法:涵盖疗效、可接受性和随访效果的系统综述和网络荟萃分析

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
{"title":"创伤后应激障碍的神经调节疗法:涵盖疗效、可接受性和随访效果的系统综述和网络荟萃分析","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Neuromodulation treatments are novel interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but their comparative effects at treatment endpoint and follow-up and the influence of moderators remain unclear. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored neuromodulation, both as monotherapy and in combination, for treating patients with PTSD. 21 RCTs with 981 PTSD patients were included. The neuromodulation treatment was classified into nine protocols, including subtypes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), cervical vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), and trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS). This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated that (1) dual-tDCS (SMD = −1.30), high-frequency repetitive TMS (HF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.97), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) (SMD = −0.93), and low-frequency repetitive TMS (LF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.76) were associated with significant reductions in PTSD symptoms at the treatment endpoint, but these effects were not significant at follow-up; (2) no difference was found between any active treatment with sham controls; (3) regarding co-morbid additions, synchronized TMS (sTMS) was significantly associated with reductions of depression symptoms at treatment endpoint (SMD = −1.80) and dual-tDCS was associated with reductions in anxiety symptoms at follow-up (SMD = −1.70). Findings suggested dual-tDCS, HF-rTMS, iTBS, and LF-rTMS were effective for reducing PTSD symptoms, while their sustained efficacy was limited.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neuromodulation treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis covering efficacy, acceptability, and follow-up effects\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Neuromodulation treatments are novel interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but their comparative effects at treatment endpoint and follow-up and the influence of moderators remain unclear. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored neuromodulation, both as monotherapy and in combination, for treating patients with PTSD. 21 RCTs with 981 PTSD patients were included. The neuromodulation treatment was classified into nine protocols, including subtypes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), cervical vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), and trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS). This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated that (1) dual-tDCS (SMD = −1.30), high-frequency repetitive TMS (HF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.97), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) (SMD = −0.93), and low-frequency repetitive TMS (LF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.76) were associated with significant reductions in PTSD symptoms at the treatment endpoint, but these effects were not significant at follow-up; (2) no difference was found between any active treatment with sham controls; (3) regarding co-morbid additions, synchronized TMS (sTMS) was significantly associated with reductions of depression symptoms at treatment endpoint (SMD = −1.80) and dual-tDCS was associated with reductions in anxiety symptoms at follow-up (SMD = −1.70). Findings suggested dual-tDCS, HF-rTMS, iTBS, and LF-rTMS were effective for reducing PTSD symptoms, while their sustained efficacy was limited.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000884\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000884","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经调节疗法是治疗创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的新型干预方法,但其在治疗终点和随访中的效果比较以及调节因素的影响仍不清楚。我们纳入了探讨神经调控治疗创伤后应激障碍患者的随机对照试验(RCT),包括单一疗法和联合疗法。共纳入了 21 项随机对照试验,981 名创伤后应激障碍患者接受了治疗。神经调控治疗分为九种方案,包括经颅磁刺激(TMS)、经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)、颈迷走神经刺激(VNS)和三叉神经刺激(TNS)等亚型。这项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析表明:(1) 双tDCS(SMD = -1.30)、高频重复TMS(HF-rTMS)(SMD = -0.97)、间歇θ脉冲刺激(iTBS)(SMD = -0.93)和低频重复TMS(LF-rTMS)(SMD = -0.76)与治疗终点时创伤后应激障碍症状的显著减轻有关,但这些影响在随访时并不显著;(2)未发现任何积极治疗与假对照组之间存在差异;(3)关于共病附加症状,同步经颅磁刺激(sTMS)与治疗终点时抑郁症状的减轻显著相关(SMD = -1.80),双重经颅磁刺激与随访时焦虑症状的减轻相关(SMD = -1.70)。研究结果表明,双重经颅磁刺激、高频经颅磁刺激、iTBS和低频经颅磁刺激可有效减轻创伤后应激障碍症状,但其持续疗效有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Neuromodulation treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis covering efficacy, acceptability, and follow-up effects

Neuromodulation treatments are novel interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but their comparative effects at treatment endpoint and follow-up and the influence of moderators remain unclear. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored neuromodulation, both as monotherapy and in combination, for treating patients with PTSD. 21 RCTs with 981 PTSD patients were included. The neuromodulation treatment was classified into nine protocols, including subtypes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), cervical vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), and trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS). This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated that (1) dual-tDCS (SMD = −1.30), high-frequency repetitive TMS (HF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.97), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) (SMD = −0.93), and low-frequency repetitive TMS (LF-rTMS) (SMD = −0.76) were associated with significant reductions in PTSD symptoms at the treatment endpoint, but these effects were not significant at follow-up; (2) no difference was found between any active treatment with sham controls; (3) regarding co-morbid additions, synchronized TMS (sTMS) was significantly associated with reductions of depression symptoms at treatment endpoint (SMD = −1.80) and dual-tDCS was associated with reductions in anxiety symptoms at follow-up (SMD = −1.70). Findings suggested dual-tDCS, HF-rTMS, iTBS, and LF-rTMS were effective for reducing PTSD symptoms, while their sustained efficacy was limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信