BACKGROUND:Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN DBS) surgery is clinically effective for treatment of cervical dystonia; however, the underlying physiology has not been examined. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to examine the effects of STN DBS on sensorimotor integration, sensorimotor plasticity and motor cortex excitability, which are identified as the key pathophysiological features underlying dystonia. METHODS:TMS paradigms of short latency afferent inhibition (SAI) and long latency afferent inhibition (LAI) were used to examine the sensorimotor integration. Sensorimotor plasticity was measured with paired associative stimulation paradigm, and motor cortex excitability was examined with short interval intracortical inhibition and intracortical facilitation. DBS was turned off and on to record these measures. RESULTS:STN DBS modulated SAI and LAI, which correlated well with the acute clinical improvement. While there were no changes seen in the motor cortex excitability, DBS was found to normalise the sensorimotor plasticity; however, there was no clinical correlation. CONCLUSION:Modulation of sensorimotor integration is a key contributor to clinical improvement with acute stimulation of STN. Since the motor cortex excitability did not change and the change in sensorimotor plasticity did not correlate with clinical improvement, STN DBS demonstrates restricted effects on the underlying physiology. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01671527.

Objective

Several studies have reported repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy as an effective treatment for the control of motor symptoms in Parkinson disease. The objective of the study is to quantify the overall efficacy of this treatment.

Types

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Literature survey

We reviewed the literature on clinical rTMS trials in Parkinson disease since the technique was introduced in 1980. We used the following databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL.

Methodology

Patients and setting

Patients with Parkinson disease who were participating in prospective clinical trials that included an active arm and a control arm and change in motor scores on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale as the primary outcome. We pooled data from 21 studies that met these criteria. We then analyzed separately the effects of low- and high-frequency rTMS on clinical motor improvements.

Synthesis

The overall pooled mean difference between treatment and control groups in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor score was significant (4.0 points, 95% confidence interval, 1.5, 6.7; P = .005). rTMS therapy was effective when low-frequency stimulation (≤ 1 Hz) was used with a pooled mean difference of 3.3 points (95% confidence interval 1.6, 5.0; P = .005). There was a trend for significance when high-frequency stimulation (≥ 5 Hz) studies were evaluated with a pooled mean difference of 3.9 points (95% confidence interval, -0.7, 8.5; P = .08). rTMS therapy demonstrated benefits at short-term follow-up (immediately after a treatment protocol) with a pooled mean difference of 3.4 points (95% confidence interval, 0.3, 6.6; P = .03) as well as at long-term follow-up (average follow-up 6 weeks) with mean difference of 4.1 points (95% confidence interval, -0.15, 8.4; P = .05). There were insufficient data to statistically analyze the effects of rTMS when we specifically examined bradykinesia, gait, and levodopa-induced dyskinesia using quantitative methods.

Conclusion

rTMS therapy in patients with Parkinson disease results in mild-to-moderate motor improvements and has the potential to be used as an adjunct therapy for the treatment of Parkinson disease. Future large, sample studies should be designed to isolate the specific clinical features of Parkinson disease that respond well to rTMS therapy.

Objective: To reveal clinical characteristics of suboptimal responses to deep brain stimulation (DBS) in a multi-country DYT1 dystonia cohort. Methods: In this multi-country multi-center retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical data of DYT1 patients who experienced suboptimal responses to DBS defined as <30% improvement in dystonia scales at the last follow-up compared with baseline. We used a literature-driven historical cohort of 112 DYT1 patients for comparison. Results: Approximately 8% of our study cohort (11 out of 132) experienced suboptimal responses to DBS. Compared with the historical cohort, the multi-country cohort with suboptimal responses had a significantly younger age at onset (mean, 7.0 vs. 8.4 years; p = 0.025) and younger age at DBS (mean, 12.0 vs. 18.6 years; p = 0.019). Additionally, cranial involvement was more common in the multi-country cohort (before DBS, 64% vs. 45%, p = 0.074; before or after DBS, 91% vs. 47%, p = 0.001). Mean motor improvement at the last follow-up from baseline were 0% and 66% for the multi-country and historical cohorts, respectively. All 11 patients of the multi-country cohort had generalization of dystonia within 2.5 years after disease onset. All patients experienced dystonia improvement of >30% postoperatively; however, secondary worsening of dystonia commenced between 6 months and 3 years following DBS. The improvement at the last follow-up was less than 30% despite optimally-placed leads, a trial of multiple programming settings, and additional DBS surgeries in all patients. The on-/off-stimulation comparison at the long-term follow-up demonstrated beneficial effects of DBS despite missing the threshold of 30% improvement over baseline. Conclusion: Approximately 8% of patients represent a more aggressive phenotype of DYT1 dystonia characterized by younger age at onset, faster disease progression, and cranial involvement, which seems to be associated with long-term suboptimal responses to DBS (e.g., secondary worsening). This information could be useful for both clinicians and patients in clinical decision making and patient counseling before and following DBS implantations. Patients with this phenotype may have different neuroplasticity, neurogenetics, or possibly distinct neurophysiology.