Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 0.461 Render date: 2021-03-01T17:05:42.110Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Transcranial magnetic stimulation neurophysiology of patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2020

Megumi Kinjo
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Masataka Wada
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Shinichiro Nakajima
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Sakiko Tsugawa
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Tomomi Nakahara
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Daniel M. Blumberger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Masaru Mimura
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Yoshihiro Noda
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a mental illness with high socio-economic burden, but its pathophysiology has not been fully elucidated. Recently, the cortical excitatory and inhibitory imbalance hypothesis and neuroplasticity hypothesis have been proposed for MDD. Although several studies have examined the neurophysiological profiles in MDD using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a meta-analysis of TMS neurophysiology has not been performed. The objective of this study was to compare TMS-electromyogram (TMS-EMG) findings between patients with MDD and healthy controls (HCs). To this end, we examined whether patients with MDD have lower short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) which reflects gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)A receptor-mediated activity, lower cortical silent period (CSP) which represents GABAB receptor-mediated activity, higher intracortical facilitation (ICF) which reflects glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor-mediated activity, and the lower result of paired associative stimulation (PAS) paradigm which shows the level of neuroplasticity in comparison with HC. Further, we explored the effect of clinical and demographic factors that may influence TMS neurophysiological indices. We first searched and identified research articles that conducted single- or paired-pulse TMS-EMG on patients with MDD and HC. Subsequently, we extracted the data from the included studies and meta-analyzed the data with the comprehensive meta-analysis software. Patients with MDD were associated with lower SICI, lower CSP, potentially higher ICF, and lower PAS compared with HC. Our results confirmed the proposed hypotheses, suggesting the usefulness of TMS neurophysiology as potential diagnostic markers of MDD.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Overview of depression

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, which affects >264 million people worldwide (GBD, 2017 Disease & Injury Incidence…, 2018). Depression is associated with a high mortality rate, with a hazard ratio of 1.61 (Pratt, Druss, Manderscheid, & Walker, Reference Pratt, Druss, Manderscheid and Walker2016) and a particularly high suicide rate. These factors, in part, have contributed to the large societal, medical and economic burden of this disease. The first line of treatment for MDD includes psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy; however, at least one-third of patients are resistant to these treatments (Ionescu, Rosenbaum, & Alpert, Reference Ionescu, Rosenbaum and Alpert2015). Therefore, it is important to elucidate the pathophysiology of MDD to develop effective strategies for treatment-resistant depression.

Disrupted excitatory and inhibitory balance in MDD

Several lines of evidence suggest that there is an imbalance between cortical excitability and inhibition in patients with MDD, whereby there is excessive cortical excitability and reduced cortical inhibition (Gabbay et al., Reference Gabbay, Bradley, Mao, Ostrover, Kang and Shungu2017; Sanacora, Treccani, & Popoli, Reference Sanacora, Treccani and Popoli2012). For example, previous studies have reported decreased gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) concentrations and increased glutamate concentrations in the brain of patients with MDD, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) (Bhagwagar et al., Reference Bhagwagar, Wylezinska, Jezzard, Evans, Boorman, Matthews and Cowen2008; Moriguchi et al., Reference Moriguchi, Takamiya, Noda, Horita, Wada, Tsugawa and Nakajima2019; Sanacora et al., Reference Sanacora, Gueorguieva, Epperson, Wu, Appel, Rothman and Mason2004). In addition, ketamine, which is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, represents an effective treatment approach for treatment-resistant depression (McGirr et al., Reference McGirr, Berlim, Bond, Fleck, Yatham and Lam2015). Taken together, these findings suggest that patients with depression may have disrupted GABA and glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity. Furthermore, functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have noted a reduction of functional connectivity in several brain regions including the prefrontal cortex (PFC) (Zeng et al., Reference Zeng, Shen, Liu, Wang, Li, Fang and Hu2012), as well as a reduction of PFC volumes in patients with MDD (Botteron, Raichle, Drevets, Heath, & Todd, Reference Botteron, Raichle, Drevets, Heath and Todd2002). These findings support the notion that neuroplasticity in the PFC may be lower in patients with MDD compared to healthy controls (HCs) (Noda et al., Reference Noda, Zomorrodi, Vila-Rodriguez, Downar, Farzan, Cash and Blumberger2018; Pittenger & Duman, Reference Pittenger and Duman2008).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) neurophysiological paradigms

Cortical excitability, inhibition, and neuroplasticity can be measured by TMS paradigms. Output measures of TMS can be assessed in two ways: coupling of TMS with peripheral electromyography (EMG) or with concurrent electroencephalography (EEG) (Farzan et al., Reference Farzan, Barr, Hoppenbrouwers, Fitzgerald, Chen, Pascual-Leone and Daskalakis2013). Single- and paired-pulse TMS paradigms have been shown to assess intracortical facilitation (ICF), and intracortical inhibition, which includes short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) and long-interval cortical inhibition (LICI) (Chen, Reference Chen2000). SICI consists of a subthreshold condition pulse and suprathreshold test pulse with an interstimulus interval of 1–5 ms and is thought to reflect GABAA receptor-mediated activity (Hanajima et al., Reference Hanajima, Ugawa, Terao, Sakai, Furubayashi, Machii and Kanazawa1998; Ilić et al., Reference Ilić, Meintzschel, Cleff, Ruge, Kessler and Ziemann2002; Ziemann, Rothwell, & Ridding, Reference Ziemann, Rothwell and Ridding1996). LICI is composed of a suprathreshold condition pulse and test pulse with an interstimulus interval of 100–200 ms (Nakamura, Kitagawa, Kawaguchi, & Tsuji, Reference Nakamura, Kitagawa, Kawaguchi and Tsuji1997). LICI is thought to reflect GABAB receptor-mediated activity. GABAB activity can also be measured using a TMS paradigm known as cortical silent period (CSP), whereby a strong test pulse is delivered during a voluntary muscle contraction (McDonnell, Orekhov, & Ziemann, Reference McDonnell, Orekhov and Ziemann2006; Siebner, Dressnandt, Auer, & Conrad, Reference Siebner, Dressnandt, Auer and Conrad1998; Wilson, Lockwood, Thickbroom, & Mastaglia, Reference Wilson, Lockwood, Thickbroom and Mastaglia1993). In contrast to these measures, ICF is thought to be a measure of cortical excitability, specifically glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity (Hunt & Castillo, Reference Hunt and Castillo2012). ICF consists of a subthreshold condition pulse and suprathreshold test pulse with an interstimulus interval of 10–15 ms (Liepert, Schwenkreis, Tegenthoff, & Malin, Reference Liepert, Schwenkreis, Tegenthoff and Malin1997; Ziemann et al., Reference Ziemann, Rothwell and Ridding1996). An additional TMS paradigm called short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) is an index of the central cholinergic activity (Tokimura et al., Reference Tokimura, Di Lazzaro, Tokimura, Oliviero, Profice, Insola and Rothwell2000). SAI is measured by delivering TMS over the M1 immediately after contralateral peripheral median nerve stimulation, which attenuates the motor-evoked potential (MEP) (Tokimura et al., Reference Tokimura, Di Lazzaro, Tokimura, Oliviero, Profice, Insola and Rothwell2000). Furthermore, neuroplasticity can be indexed using a TMS paradigm called paired associative stimulation (PAS). This paradigm combines repeated electrical stimulation to the peripheral median nerve of the wrist with TMS to the contralateral primary motor cortex, for over 30 min (Stefan, Kunesch, Cohen, Benecke, & Classen, Reference Stefan, Kunesch, Cohen, Benecke and Classen2000). Depending on the time interval between the PNS and TMS pulses, PAS can induce either long-term potentiation (LTP)-like (e.g. ~25 ms interval) and long-term depression (LTD)-like (e.g. ~10 ms interval) neuronal activity (Buonomano & Merzenich, Reference Buonomano and Merzenich1998).

Previous studies of TMS neurophysiological paradigms in MDD

As mentioned earlier, research suggests that patients with MDD may have excessive cortical excitability and reduced cortical inhibition, in addition to lower levels of neuroplasticity in the PFC. Several neurophysiological studies using TMS in patients with MDD have attempted to establish support for these hypotheses (Kaskie & Ferrarelli, Reference Kaskie and Ferrarelli2018); however, the results of these studies are inconsistent. Therefore, continued research is necessary in order to elucidate if these hypotheses are valid.

Aim of this review study

Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare TMS-EMG indices between patients with MDD and HC. Our hypotheses were as follows: patients with MDD would have lower GABAA/B receptor-mediated activity, higher glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity, and lower levels of neuroplasticity compared to HC. In addition, we explored the effects of clinic-demographic factors such as age, sex, and depression severity on the TMS findings in patients with MDD.

Methods

Search strategy

Research articles written in English were screened by three reviewers using EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO from the earliest record to 29 April 2019. The search terms included ‘non-invasive brain stimulation’ or ‘TMS’ or ‘transcranial magnetic stimulation’, ‘brain activity’ or ‘brain waves’ or ‘EEG’ or ‘electroencephalogram’ or ‘electroencephalography’ or ‘EMG’ or ‘MEP’ or ‘motor evoked potential’ or ‘neurophysiolo’ or ‘neuroplasticity’ or ‘plasticity’ or ‘plastic’ or ‘short interval intracortical inhibition’ or ‘SICI’ or ‘intracortical facilitation’ or ‘ICF’ or ‘long interval intracortical inhibition’ or ‘LICI’ or ‘paired associative stimulation’ or ‘PAS’ or ‘short latency afferent inhibition’ or ‘SAI’ or ‘contralateral silent period’ or ‘CSP’, and ‘depression’.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included in the analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) depression was diagnosed by operational diagnostic criteria; (2) TMS-EMG was conducted using any of the following paradigms, SICI, LICI, ICF, SAI, PAS, or CSP; and (3) results were included for both patients with depression and HCs. Various types of depression, such as atypical depression and melancholic depression, were also included. Vascular depression (VD) was excluded from the main meta-analyses, however, we included VD to sub-analyze its effect on the results for certain TMS paradigms. Of note, any discrepancies on the data extraction process were reviewed and resolved by the senior researcher (Y.N.).

Analysis

The meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted using the comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) Software (Biostat Inc.). Outcome variables were denoted as standardized mean differences (SMD). A 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated following summary statistics. Study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic with I 2 ≥ 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. When a two-sided p value was <0.05, it was statistically considered to be significant. Further, we conducted meta-regression analyses to examine the effects of additional factors including patients' age, gender rate, and severity of depression. For the severity of the depression factor, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) with 17 items was selected for the moderator variable. Studies that included the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), or BDI-II scores, were converted to HRSD scores, as there are strong correlations between HRSD score and correlation coefficients of r = 0.88, r = 0.73, and r = 0.74, respectively (Furukawa et al., Reference Furukawa, Reijnders, Kishimoto, Sakata, DeRubeis, Dimidjian and Cuijpers2019; Heo, Murphy, & Meyers, Reference Heo, Murphy and Meyers2007). The formula used for the conversion of the MADRS to the HRSD was: HDRS17 = −1.58 + 0.86 × MADRS (Heo et al., Reference Heo, Murphy and Meyers2007). For the conversion of scores on the BDI or BDI-II to the HRSD, published data from a previous study were used (Furukawa et al., Reference Furukawa, Reijnders, Kishimoto, Sakata, DeRubeis, Dimidjian and Cuijpers2019, Table 2).

For the included studies with missing data values, we supplemented them using one of the following options: (1) contacting the authors for additional data or (2) enlarging the graphic charts, if present, and measuring the data values with R Studio Software or a ruler. Thus, we also conducted the analyses only on the studies that had complete data and confirmed if the pattern of findings held the same.

Risk of bias of the included studies

We used the risk of a bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Park, Lee, Seo, Sheen, Hahn and Son2013) to assess the risk of bias for the following factors: the selection of participants, confounding variables, measurement of exposure, blinding of outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The assessment is shown in online Supplementary Fig. S1.

Publication bias

The publication bias was assessed by Egger's test using the CMA Software.

Results

Out of 882 initial records, 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement flow diagram is presented in online Supplementary Fig. S2. The characteristics of the included studies are detailed in Table 1. There were nine studies which measured SICI (Bajbouj et al., Reference Bajbouj, Lisanby, Lang, Danker-Hopfe, Heuser and Neu2006; Concerto et al., Reference Concerto, Lanza, Cantone, Pennisi, Giordano, Spampinato and Bella2013; Croarkin et al., Reference Croarkin, Nakonezny, Husain, Melton, Buyukdura, Kennard and Daskalakis2013; Lefaucheur et al., Reference Lefaucheur, Lucas, Andraud, Hogrel, Bellivier, Del Cul and Paillère-Martinot2008; Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Nakonezny, Blacker, Vande Voort, Port, Worrell and Croarkin2018; Maeda, Keenan, & Pascual-Leone, Reference Maeda, Keenan and Pascual-Leone2000a, Reference Maeda, Keenan, Tormos, Topka and Pascual-Leone2020b; Münchau et al., Reference Münchau, Langosch, Gerschlager, Rothwell, Orth and Trimble2005; Veronezi et al., Reference Veronezi, Moffa, Carvalho, Galhardoni, Simis, Benseñor and Brunoni2016), two studies for LICI (Croarkin et al., Reference Croarkin, Nakonezny, Lewis, Zaccariello, Huxsahl, Husain and Daskalakis2014; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Nakonezny, Blacker, Vande Voort, Port, Worrell and Croarkin2018), nine studies for CSP (Bajbouj et al., Reference Bajbouj, Lisanby, Lang, Danker-Hopfe, Heuser and Neu2006; Concerto et al., Reference Concerto, Lanza, Cantone, Pennisi, Giordano, Spampinato and Bella2013; Croarkin et al., Reference Croarkin, Nakonezny, Husain, Melton, Buyukdura, Kennard and Daskalakis2013; Lefaucheur et al., Reference Lefaucheur, Lucas, Andraud, Hogrel, Bellivier, Del Cul and Paillère-Martinot2008; Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Nakonezny, Blacker, Vande Voort, Port, Worrell and Croarkin2018; Münchau et al., Reference Münchau, Langosch, Gerschlager, Rothwell, Orth and Trimble2005; Steele, Glabus, Shajahan, & Ebmeier, Reference Steele, Glabus, Shajahan and Ebmeier2000; Veronezi et al., Reference Veronezi, Moffa, Carvalho, Galhardoni, Simis, Benseñor and Brunoni2016), nine studies for ICF (Bajbouj et al., Reference Bajbouj, Lisanby, Lang, Danker-Hopfe, Heuser and Neu2006; Concerto et al., Reference Concerto, Lanza, Cantone, Pennisi, Giordano, Spampinato and Bella2013; Croarkin et al., Reference Croarkin, Nakonezny, Husain, Melton, Buyukdura, Kennard and Daskalakis2013; Lefaucheur et al., Reference Lefaucheur, Lucas, Andraud, Hogrel, Bellivier, Del Cul and Paillère-Martinot2008; Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Nakonezny, Blacker, Vande Voort, Port, Worrell and Croarkin2018; Maeda et al., Reference Maeda, Keenan and Pascual-Leone2000a, Reference Maeda, Keenan, Tormos, Topka and Pascual-Leone2020b; Münchau et al., Reference Münchau, Langosch, Gerschlager, Rothwell, Orth and Trimble2005; Veronezi et al., Reference Veronezi, Moffa, Carvalho, Galhardoni, Simis, Benseñor and Brunoni2016), and three studies for PAS (Bhandari et al., Reference Bhandari, Lissemore, Rajji, Mulsant, Cash, Noda and Blumberger2018; Kuhn et al., Reference Kuhn, Mainberger, Feige, Maier, Wirminghaus, Limbach and Nissen2016; Player et al., Reference Player, Taylor, Weickert, Alonzo, Sachdev, Martin and Loo2013). There were no studies that examined the SAI paradigm that met the inclusion criteria. Due to the insufficient number of studies, we did not conduct the meta-analysis on the LICI and SAI paradigms.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies

MDD, major depressive disorder; VD, vascular depression; TRD, treatment-resistant major depressive disorder; HRSD, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; MADRS, Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; CDRS-R, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BDI-II, Beck Depression Inventory second edition; SICI, short-interval cortical inhibition; LICI, long-interval cortical inhibition; CSP, cortical silent period; ICF, intracortical facilitation; PAS, paired associative stimulation.

Meta-analysis

The results of the meta-analysis for SICI, CSP, ICF and PAS are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. The results of meta-analyses for the SICI, LICI, CSP, ICF, and PAS paradigms comparing patients with MDD and HCs. Favors A (left side): HC. Favors B (right side): MDD.

SICI and CSP values were smaller in the MDD group compared to the HC group (SICI: SMD = −0.22, CI −0.42 to −0.020, p = 0.031; CSP: SMD = −0.49, CI −0.69 to −0.29, p < 0.001). In contrast, ICF values were greater in patients with MDD compared to HCs (SMD = 0.22, CI 0.017–0.42, p = 0.034). MEP values generated using the PAS paradigm were smaller in the MDD group compared to the HC group (SMD = −0.66, CI −0.96 to −0.36, p < 0.001). Further, for the PAS paradigm, all of the three studies included in this systematic review indicated LTP-like activity.

The analyses when the studies with missing data values were excluded

There were four studies measuring SICI (Concerto et al., Reference Concerto, Lanza, Cantone, Pennisi, Giordano, Spampinato and Bella2013; Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010; Maeda et al., Reference Maeda, Keenan and Pascual-Leone2000a, Reference Maeda, Keenan, Tormos, Topka and Pascual-Leone2020b; Münchau et al., Reference Münchau, Langosch, Gerschlager, Rothwell, Orth and Trimble2005), one study for CSP (Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010), three studies for ICF (Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Fitzgerald, Favalli, Blumberger, Daigle and Daskalakis2010; Maeda et al., Reference Maeda, Keenan and Pascual-Leone2000a, Reference Maeda, Keenan, Tormos, Topka and Pascual-Leone2020b; Münchau et al., Reference Münchau, Langosch, Gerschlager, Rothwell, Orth and Trimble2005), and two studies for PAS (Bhandari et al., Reference Bhandari, Lissemore, Rajji, Mulsant, Cash, Noda and Blumberger2018; Player et al., Reference Player, Taylor, Weickert, Alonzo, Sachdev, Martin and Loo2013) which had missing data values. Thus, we measured the values from graphic charts in the articles using R Studio Software or a ruler. When these studies with missing data values were excluded from the analyses, the pattern of the findings still remained. However, the finding of ICF became non-significant in this analysis (SICI: SMD = −0.38, CI −0.62 to −0.14, p = 0.0020; CSP: SMD = −0.37, CI −0.59 to −0.15, p = 0.0010; ICF: SMD = 0.18, CI −0.050 to 0.41, p = 0.12). On the other hand, we could not conduct the analysis of the PAS paradigm since there was only one study left.

The effect of VD on the results

Three studies employed the SICI, CSP, and ICF paradigms in patients with VD, while no studies were found in this population using the PAS paradigm. When VD was included for the analysis of the SICI paradigm, the result for the meta-analysis became non-significant (SMD = −0.098, CI −0.28 to 0.085, p = 0.30). For the analysis of the CSP paradigm, the result remained significant (SMD = −0.34, CI −0.53 to −0.16, p < 0.001). Similarly, for the ICF paradigm, the result remained significant when VD was included (SMD = 0.27, CI 0.085 to 0.45, p = 0.004) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The results of meta-analyses for the SICI, CSP, and ICF paradigms, when VD was included in MDD. Favors A (left side): HC. Favors B (right side): MDD.

Meta-regression analysis

Meta-regression analyses were conducted for the SICI, CSP, and ICF paradigms, while they could not be conducted for the PAS paradigm due to the insufficient number of studies.

First, patients' age was not associated with the SMD of the SICI, CSP, or ICF paradigms between patients with MDD and HCs (SICI: slope = −0.0084, CI −0.032 to 0.015, p = 0.24; CSP: slope = 0.013, CI −0.027 to 0.052, p = 0.26; ICF: slope = −0.018, CI −0.049 to 0.012, p = 0.12). The scatter plots are displayed in online Supplementary Fig. S3.

Second, the proportion of female patients was not associated with the SMD of the SICI, CSP, or ICF paradigms between patients with MDD and HCs (SICI: slope = 0.019, CI −0.0076 to 0.045, p = 0.083; CSP: slope = 0.018, CI −0.028 to 0.063, p = 0.23; ICF: slope = 0.027, CI −0.012 to 0.066, p = 0.085). The scatter plots are displayed in online Supplementary Fig. S4.

Finally, the severity of depression as assessed by the HRSD-17 was not associated with the SMD of the SICI and CSP paradigms between patients with MDD and HCs (SICI: slope = −0.037, CI −0.10 to 0.030, p = 0.14; CSP: slope = 0.052, CI −0.074 to 0.18, p = 0.21), while it was associated with higher SMDs in the ICF paradigm (slope = 0.15, CI 0.048–0.26, p = 0.0023). The scatter plots are displayed in online Supplementary Fig. S5.

Publication bias

Egger's test showed no publication bias in the analysis of the SICI, CSP, ICF, and PAS paradigms. The funnel plots are displayed in online Supplementary Fig. S6.

Risk of bias

The risk of bias of the included studies is summarized in online Supplementary Fig. S1. For ‘random sequence generation’, the risk of bias was ‘unclear’ for four studies which did not mention the method of recruitment of participants. The risk of bias for ‘incomplete outcome data’ was ‘unclear’ for one study which did not specify how data was excluded. For ‘selective reporting’, the risk of bias was ‘unclear’ for all studies since we did not have access to the experimental protocols.

In addition, no specific sponsorship bias was identified for the included studies in this review, as none of the studies were funded by the private sector. Although some studies received funding from companies, those companies was not likely to affect the results because their business was not related to TMS neurophysiology. Other than these studies, some of the included studies mentioned that they were funded by some foundations which were not likely to make sponsorship bias. The other studies stated that they had no conflict of interest, or did not mention about conflict of interest.

Discussion

This meta-analysis compared GABAA/B receptor-mediated activity, glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity, and neuroplasticity between patients with MDD and HC through comprehensive TMS-EMG neurophysiological indices. Our analyses revealed that compared to HCs, patients with MDD have lower SICI, CSP, and probably higher ICF, with small effect sizes, and lower PAS, with a medium effect size (Fig. 1). These results suggest that patients with MDD have lower GABAA/B receptor-mediated activity, a lower level of neuroplasticity, and might have higher glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity compared with HC. These findings provide support for the proposed cortical excitatory and inhibitory imbalance hypothesis and neuroplasticity hypothesis of MDD. Taken together, our results suggest that out of the five TMS paradigms, lower values of SICI, CSP, and PAS paradigms, and higher ICF could represent biomarkers for MDD, which can be used to distinguish MDD patients from HCs. In contrast to our ICF finding, a previous meta-analysis of glutamatergic neurometabolite levels in MDD as measured by 1H-MRS revealed decreased glutamate + glutamine levels in the medial frontal cortex in patients with MDD (Moriguchi et al., Reference Moriguchi, Takamiya, Noda, Horita, Wada, Tsugawa and Nakajima2019). This discrepancy may be due to differences in the region of interest and the modality of measurement. For example, TMS measures functional neural dynamics, while 1H-MRS measures static neurometabolite levels. Thus, the combination of these two may represent a more comprehensive measure of the difference in glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity between patients with MDD and HC.

One TMS-EEG study examined neuroplasticity differences in PFC activity between patients with MDD and HC using the PAS paradigm (Noda et al., Reference Noda, Zomorrodi, Vila-Rodriguez, Downar, Farzan, Cash and Blumberger2018). The study showed that prefrontal neuroplasticity was lower in patients with MDD compared to HCs (SMD = −0.78, CI −1.1 to −0.51, p = 0.004), supporting the result of the current meta-analysis findings for PAS in the motor cortex. These results indicate that reduced neuroplasticity is not limited to the motor cortex and might extend to broad cortical regions.

When studies of VD were included in the sub-analysis, the group differences in SICI no longer remained significant and differences in CSP became smaller. In contrast, the inclusion of the VD studies increased the group differences of the ICF paradigm (Fig. 2). The majority of patients with VD exhibit dementia-like pathology due to widespread microvascular insults, resulting in impaired inhibitory function. This is thought to lead to further disruption in cortical excitability and decrease in cortical inhibition (Alexopoulos et al., Reference Alexopoulos, Meyers, Young, Kakuma, Silbersweig and Charlson1997; Issac, Chandra, & Nagaraju, Reference Issac, Chandra and Nagaraju2013). Our meta-analyses indicated that patients with VD showed higher cortical excitability and higher cortical inhibition compared to the analysis where they were not included. Thus, our ICF findings were in line with previous research, whereas our analyses of SICI and CSP were not. This discrepancy is possibly due to the compensatory mechanism of interhemispheric inhibition. That is, when the excitability of one hemisphere increases (i.e. increased ICF), the inhibitory properties of the contralateral hemisphere also increases in response (i.e. increased SICI and CSP), and vice versa.

The results of meta-regression on patients' age suggest that cortical functions of the M1, including GABAA/B and glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity, may not be significantly influenced by age (online Supplementary Fig. S3). In general, however, neurophysiological activities have been shown to decrease with age (Talelli, Ewas, Waddingham, Rothwell, & Ward, Reference Talelli, Ewas, Waddingham, Rothwell and Ward2008). This discrepancy was possibly due to the small number of included studies. Further research with a larger number of studies is needed to confirm the effect of age on these neurophysiological indices.

The results of meta-regression on patients' sex suggest that cortical functions of the M1, including GABAA/B and glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity, do not differ between males and females (online Supplementary Fig. 4). A previous TMS study found a significant difference in TMS-induced MEPs of the lower limbs but not of the upper limbs between males and females (Cantone et al., Reference Cantone, Lanza, Vinciguerra, Puglisi, Ricceri, Fisicaro and Pennisi2019). This may be because the sex difference in the distance of the corticospinal tract from the M1 to the upper limbs is relatively smaller compared to the lower limbs. In the present systematic review, all of the studies included in this meta-analysis assessed TMS-EMG of the upper limbs. Thus, MEPs measured from the upper limbs may not detect subtle sex differences. In contrast, a previous study explored the effects of female hormones such as estrogen and progesterone on cortical excitability and found significantly higher motor threshold values at the first dorsal interosseous muscle using TMS applied to the M1 in women with amenorrhea compared to women in the early follicular stage (Chagas et al., Reference Chagas, Monteiro, Mazer, Baltar, Marques, Carneiro and Monte-Silva2018). This, therefore, highlights a potential difference in cortical functions of the M1 between males and females. Our analysis did not include information regarding the menstrual cycle of the study samples due to the lack of information provided.

The result of meta-regression on the severity of depression for the ICF paradigm suggests that the worse the HRSD-17 score, the higher the glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity (online Supplementary Fig. S5). Therefore, ICF may represent a state marker of MDD. In contrast, the results of meta-regression on depression severity for the SICI and CSP paradigms show no correlations between HRSD-17 scores and GABAA/B receptor-mediated activity (online Supplementary Fig. S5). Taken together, our results suggest that while SICI and CSP may be biomarkers of MDD, it is difficult to evaluate the state of depression from the inhibitory function of the corticospinal tract.

There are several novel therapeutic strategies for MDD that target the neurophysiological bases of MDD. For instance, ketamine, a non-competitive antagonist of the NMDA receptor (Anis, Berry, Burton, & Lodge, Reference Anis, Berry, Burton and Lodge1983), is now used in refractory depression at some specialized medical institutions. Since patients with MDD have higher ICF compared to HCs, ketamine may rapidly suppress hyperexcitation in glutamate NMDA receptor-mediated activity, resulting in improvement of depression symptoms.

Another promising pharmacological treatment for MDD is a novel GABAA receptor positive allosteric modulator known as SAGE-217 (3α-hydroxy-3β-methyl-21-(4-cyano-1H-pyrazol-1′-yl)-19-nor-5β-pregnan-20-one) (Martinez Botella et al., Reference Martinez Botella, Salituro, Harrison, Beresis, Bai, Blanco and Robichaud2017). Our SICI findings showing that GABAA receptor-mediated activity may be lower in patients with MDD compared to HCs is suggestive of the effectiveness of SAGE-217 for the treatment of MDD.

Some neurosteroids have also been shown to affect the state of depression. For example, estrogen attenuates GABAA/B receptor-mediated activities (Lagrange, Wagner, Rønnekleiv, & Kelly, Reference Lagrange, Wagner, Rønnekleiv and Kelly1996; Mukherjee et al., Reference Mukherjee, Cardarelli, Cantaut-Belarif, Deeb, Srivastava, Tyagarajan and Moss2017). However, no relationship was found between the proportion of females in the included studies and GABAA/B receptor-mediated inhibitory functions in the present meta-regression analysis (see online Supplementary Fig. S4). Another neurosteroid example is allopregnanolone, which is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABAA receptor (Faroni & Magnaghi, Reference Faroni and Magnaghi2011). Allopregnanolone also stimulates GABA synthesis by increasing the level of glutamic acid decarboxylase of 67 kDa, resulting in the activation of both GABAA/B receptor-mediated activities (Magnaghi et al., Reference Magnaghi, Parducz, Frasca, Ballabio, Procacci, Racagni and Fumagalli2010). The results of our analyses on SICI and CSP suggest the effectiveness of allopregnanolone as a potential treatment for MDD in women. In support of this, allopregnanolone has recently been approved by the FDA to treat postpartum depression, a condition that is associated with disrupted GABAergic functioning due to a rapid postpartum drop in progesterone (Walton & Maguire, Reference Walton and Maguire2019).

Other than pharmacotherapy, repetitive TMS (rTMS) has emerged as a promising treatment for treatment-resistant depression. rTMS is thought to exert its therapeutic effect through the induction of neuroplasticity in both excitatory and inhibitory synapses (Lenz et al., Reference Lenz, Galanis, Müller-Dahlhaus, Opitz, Wierenga, Szabó and Vlachos2016). Our PAS analysis indicates a lower level of neuroplasticity in patients with MDD compared to HCs, thus suggesting that rTMS could be a useful treatment to target the underlying pathophysiological impairments associated with depression.

The present study has several limitations. First, we failed to perform the meta-analysis for the PAS due to the limited number of the included studies, warranting further research on PAS in MDD. Ongoing investigation as the field continues to grow would improve the accuracy and reliability of the results. Second, for some studies, we had to impute the results from figures using R Studio software or a ruler which also impacted the accuracy of the findings. When the studies with missing data were excluded from the analyses, the difference of the ICF results between HCs and patients with MDD became non-significant. Therefore, ICF findings in patients with MDD should be interpreted with caution at this time. Further research on the ICF paradigm is needed comparing larger sizes of patients with MDD and HCs. Third, the concomitant medication administered to patients with MDD was not standardized across the studies. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the effect of hormonal fluctuation due to the menstrual cycle in females on neurophysiological findings was not considered as a confounding factor. Additionally, there are other potential confounding factors that could affect the results, including, alcohol, drugs, smoking, and physical activity that were not measured in the studies (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Lu, Antal, Classen, Nitsche, Ziemann and Rothwell2017; Kähkönen, Wilenius, Nikulin, Ollikainen, & Ilmoniemi, Reference Kähkönen, Wilenius, Nikulin, Ollikainen and Ilmoniemi2003; Kalivas & O'Brien, Reference Kalivas and O'Brien2008). Finally, three studies using the scales of depression other than HRSD-17, MADRS, and BDI (Bajbouj et al., Reference Bajbouj, Lisanby, Lang, Danker-Hopfe, Heuser and Neu2006; Croarkin et al., Reference Croarkin, Nakonezny, Husain, Melton, Buyukdura, Kennard and Daskalakis2013; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Nakonezny, Blacker, Vande Voort, Port, Worrell and Croarkin2018) could not be included in the meta-regression since the scales other than these three did not correlate with HRSD-17 score, which we selected as the moderator variable.

In summary, our results provided support for the cortical excitatory and inhibitory imbalance hypothesis as well as the neuroplasticity hypothesis. The present systematic review and meta-analyses on TMS neurophysiology in MDD warrants further research with larger sample sizes to replicate our findings and the consideration of potential confounding factors that may affect neural activity as mentioned above. Finally, given the results of this study, TMS neurophysiology has the potential not only to distinguish MDD from HCs but also to be a useful neuroscientific tool to elucidate the pathophysiology of MDD.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720004729

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Michelle Goodman for editing related to grammar and language.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

Alexopoulos, G. S., Meyers, B. S., Young, R. C., Kakuma, T., Silbersweig, D., & Charlson, M. (1997). Clinically defined vascular depression. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(4), 562565.Google ScholarPubMed
Anis, N. A., Berry, S. C., Burton, N. R., & Lodge, D. (1983). The dissociative anaesthetics, ketamine and phencyclidine, selectively reduce excitation of central mammalian neurones by N-methyl-aspartate. British Journal of Pharmacology, 79(2), 565575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bajbouj, M., Lisanby, S. H., Lang, U. E., Danker-Hopfe, H., Heuser, I., & Neu, P. (2006). Evidence for impaired cortical inhibition in patients with unipolar major depression. Biological Psychiatry, 59(5), 395400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bella, R., Ferri, R., Pennisi, M., Cantone, M., Lanza, G., Malaguarnera, G., … Pennisi, G. (2011). Enhanced motor cortex facilitation in patients with vascular cognitive impairment-no dementia. Neuroscience Letters, 503(3), 171175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhagwagar, Z., Wylezinska, M., Jezzard, P., Evans, J., Boorman, E., Matthews, P. M., & Cowen, P. J. (2008). Low GABA concentrations in occipital cortex and anterior cingulate cortex in medication-free, recovered depressed patients. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology/Official Scientific Journal of the Collegium Internationale Neuropsychopharmacologicum, 11(2), 255260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhandari, A., Lissemore, J. I., Rajji, T. K., Mulsant, B. H., Cash, R. F. H., Noda, Y., … Blumberger, D. M. (2018). Assessment of neuroplasticity in late-life depression with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 105, 6370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botteron, K. N., Raichle, M. E., Drevets, W. C., Heath, A. C., & Todd, R. D. (2002). Volumetric reduction in left subgenual prefrontal cortex in early onset depression. Biological Psychiatry, 51(4), 342344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buonomano, D. V., & Merzenich, M. M. (1998). Cortical plasticity: From synapses to maps. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21, 149186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantone, M., Lanza, G., Vinciguerra, L., Puglisi, V., Ricceri, R., Fisicaro, F., … Pennisi, M. (2019). Age, height, and sex on motor evoked potentials: Translational data from a large Italian cohort in a clinical environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chagas, A. P., Monteiro, M., Mazer, V., Baltar, A., Marques, D., Carneiro, M., … Monte-Silva, K. (2018). Cortical excitability variability: Insights into biological and behavioral characteristics of healthy individuals. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 390, 172177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, R. (2000). Studies of human motor physiology with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Muscle & Nerve. Supplement, 9, S26S32.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Concerto, C., Lanza, G., Cantone, M., Pennisi, M., Giordano, D., Spampinato, C., … Bella, R. (2013). Different patterns of cortical excitability in major depression and vascular depression: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croarkin, P. E., Nakonezny, P. A., Husain, M. M., Melton, T., Buyukdura, J. S., Kennard, B. D., … Daskalakis, Z. J. (2013). Evidence for increased glutamatergic cortical facilitation in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(3), 291299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croarkin, P. E., Nakonezny, P. A., Lewis, C. P., Zaccariello, M. J., Huxsahl, J. E., Husain, M. M., … Daskalakis, Z. J. (2014). Developmental aspects of cortical excitability and inhibition in depressed and healthy youth: An exploratory study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faroni, A., & Magnaghi, V. (2011). The neurosteroid allopregnanolone modulates specific functions in central and peripheral glial cells. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2, 103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farzan, F., Barr, M. S., Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., Fitzgerald, P. B., Chen, R., Pascual-Leone, A., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2013). The EEG correlates of the TMS-induced EMG silent period in humans. NeuroImage, 83, 120134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furukawa, T. A., Reijnders, M., Kishimoto, S., Sakata, M., DeRubeis, R. J., Dimidjian, S., … Cuijpers, P. (2019). Translating the BDI and BDI-II into the HAMD and vice versa with equipercentile linking. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 29, e24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabbay, V., Bradley, K. A., Mao, X., Ostrover, R., Kang, G., & Shungu, D. C. (2017). Anterior cingulate cortex γ-aminobutyric acid deficits in youth with depression. Translational Psychiatry, 7(8), e1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. (2018). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. The Lancet, 392(10159), 17891858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanajima, R., Ugawa, Y., Terao, Y., Sakai, K., Furubayashi, T., Machii, K., & Kanazawa, I. (1998). Paired-pulse magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex: Differences among I waves. The Journal of Physiology, 509(Pt 2), 607618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heo, M., Murphy, C. F., & Meyers, B. S. (2007). Relationship between the Hamilton depression rating scale and the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale in depressed elderly: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: Official Journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(10), 899905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y.-Z., Lu, M.-K., Antal, A., Classen, J., Nitsche, M., Ziemann, U., … Rothwell, J. (2017). Plasticity induced by non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation: A position paper. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 128(11), 23182329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, D. L., & Castillo, P. E. (2012). Synaptic plasticity of NMDA receptors: Mechanisms and functional implications. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(3), 496508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ilić, T. V., Meintzschel, F., Cleff, U., Ruge, D., Kessler, K. R., & Ziemann, U. (2002). Short-interval paired-pulse inhibition and facilitation of human motor cortex: The dimension of stimulus intensity. The Journal of Physiology, 545(1), 153167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ionescu, D. F., Rosenbaum, J. F., & Alpert, J. E. (2015). Pharmacological approaches to the challenge of treatment-resistant depression. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 17(2), 111126.Google ScholarPubMed
Issac, T. G., Chandra, S. R., & Nagaraju, B. C. (2013). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with early cortical dementia: A pilot study. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 16(4), 619622.Google ScholarPubMed
Kähkönen, S., Wilenius, J., Nikulin, V. V., Ollikainen, M., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2003). Alcohol reduces prefrontal cortical excitability in humans: A combined TMS and EEG study. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 28(4), 747754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalivas, P. W., & O'Brien, C. (2008). Drug addiction as a pathology of staged neuroplasticity. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 33(1), 166180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaskie, R. E., & Ferrarelli, F. (2018). Investigating the neurobiology of schizophrenia and other major psychiatric disorders with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Schizophrenia Research, 192, 3038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S. Y., Park, J. E., Lee, Y. J., Seo, H.-J., Sheen, S.-S., Hahn, S., … Son, H.-J. (2013). Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(4), 408414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, M., Mainberger, F., Feige, B., Maier, J. G., Wirminghaus, M., Limbach, L., … Nissen, C. (2016). State-dependent partial occlusion of cortical LTP-like plasticity in major depression. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(6), 15211529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagrange, A. H., Wagner, E. J., Rønnekleiv, O. K., & Kelly, M. J. (1996). Estrogen rapidly attenuates a GABAB response in hypothalamic neurons. Neuroendocrinology, 64(2), 114123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefaucheur, J. P., Lucas, B., Andraud, F., Hogrel, J. Y., Bellivier, F., Del Cul, A., … Paillère-Martinot, M. L. (2008). Inter-hemispheric asymmetry of motor corticospinal excitability in major depression studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(5), 389398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenz, M., Galanis, C., Müller-Dahlhaus, F., Opitz, A., Wierenga, C. J., Szabó, G., … Vlachos, A. (2016). Repetitive magnetic stimulation induces plasticity of inhibitory synapses. Nature Communications, 7, 10020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, A. J., Fitzgerald, P. B., Favalli, G., Blumberger, D. M., Daigle, M., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2010). Evidence of cortical inhibitory deficits in major depressive disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 67(5), 458464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, C. P., Nakonezny, P. A., Blacker, C. J., Vande Voort, J. L., Port, J. D., Worrell, G. A., … Croarkin, P. E. (2018). Cortical inhibitory markers of lifetime suicidal behavior in depressed adolescents. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 43(9), 18221831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liepert, J., Schwenkreis, P., Tegenthoff, M., & Malin, J. P. (1997). The glutamate antagonist riluzole suppresses intracortical facilitation. Journal of Neural Transmission, 104(11–12), 12071214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maeda, F., Keenan, J. P., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2000a). Interhemispheric asymmetry of motor cortical excitability in major depression as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 177, 169173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, F., Keenan, J. P., Tormos, J. M., Topka, H., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2000b). Modulation of corticospinal excitability by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 111(5), 800805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnaghi, V., Parducz, A., Frasca, A., Ballabio, M., Procacci, P., Racagni, G., … Fumagalli, F. (2010). GABA Synthesis in schwann cells is induced by the neuroactive steroid allopregnanolone. Journal of Neurochemistry, 112(4), 980990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez Botella, G., Salituro, F. G., Harrison, B. L., Beresis, R. T., Bai, Z., Blanco, M.-J., … Robichaud, A. J. (2017). Neuroactive steroids. 2. 3α-hydroxy-3β-methyl-21-(4-cyano-1H-pyrazol-1’-yl)-19-nor-5β-pregnan-20-one (SAGE-217): A clinical next generation neuroactive steroid positive allosteric modulator of the (γ-Aminobutyric Acid)A receptor. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 60(18), 78107819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, M. N., Orekhov, Y., & Ziemann, U. (2006). The role of GABA(B) receptors in intracortical inhibition in the human motor cortex. Experimental Brain Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation Cerebrale, 173(1), 8693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGirr, A., Berlim, M. T., Bond, D. J., Fleck, M. P., Yatham, L. N., & Lam, R. W. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ketamine in the rapid treatment of major depressive episodes. Psychological Medicine, 45(4), 693704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriguchi, S., Takamiya, A., Noda, Y., Horita, N., Wada, M., Tsugawa, S., … Nakajima, S. (2019). Glutamatergic neurometabolite levels in major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(7), 952964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukherjee, J., Cardarelli, R. A., Cantaut-Belarif, Y., Deeb, T. Z., Srivastava, D. P., Tyagarajan, S. K., … Moss, S. J. (2017). Estradiol modulates the efficacy of synaptic inhibition by decreasing the dwell time of GABAA receptors at inhibitory synapses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(44), 1176311768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münchau, A., Langosch, J. M., Gerschlager, W., Rothwell, J. C., Orth, M., & Trimble, M. R. (2005). Mirtazapine increases cortical excitability in healthy controls and epilepsy patients with major depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 76(4), 527533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, H., Kitagawa, H., Kawaguchi, Y., & Tsuji, H. (1997). Intracortical facilitation and inhibition after transcranial magnetic stimulation in conscious humans. The Journal of Physiology, 498(Pt 3), 817823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noda, Y., Zomorrodi, R., Vila-Rodriguez, F., Downar, J., Farzan, F., Cash, R. F. H., … Blumberger, D. M. (2018). Impaired neuroplasticity in the prefrontal cortex in depression indexed through paired associative stimulation. Depression and Anxiety, 35(5), 448456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennisi, M., Lanza, G., Cantone, M., Ricceri, R., Spampinato, C., Pennisi, G., … Bella, R. (2016). Correlation between motor Cortex excitability changes and cognitive impairment in vascular depression: Pathophysiological insights from a longitudinal TMS study. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 8154969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pittenger, C., & Duman, R. S. (2008). Stress, depression, and neuroplasticity: A convergence of mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 33(1), 88109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Player, M. J., Taylor, J. L., Weickert, C. S., Alonzo, A., Sachdev, P., Martin, D., … Loo, C. K. (2013). Neuroplasticity in depressed individuals compared with healthy controls. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(11), 21012108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, L. A., Druss, B. G., Manderscheid, R. W., & Walker, E. R. (2016). Excess mortality due to depression and anxiety in the United States: Results from a nationally representative survey. General Hospital Psychiatry, 39, 3945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanacora, G., Gueorguieva, R., Epperson, C. N., Wu, Y.-T., Appel, M., Rothman, D. L., … Mason, G. F. (2004). Subtype-specific alterations of gamma-aminobutyric acid and glutamate in patients with major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(7), 705713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanacora, G., Treccani, G., & Popoli, M. (2012). Towards a glutamate hypothesis of depression: An emerging frontier of neuropsychopharmacology for mood disorders. Neuropharmacology, 62(1), 6377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebner, H. R., Dressnandt, J., Auer, C., & Conrad, B. (1998). Continuous intrathecal baclofen infusions induced a marked increase of the transcranially evoked silent period in a patient with generalized dystonia. Muscle & Nerve, 21(9), 12091212.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. D., Glabus, M. F., Shajahan, P. M., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2000). Increased cortical inhibition in depression: A prolonged silent period with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Psychological Medicine, 30(3), 565570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefan, K., Kunesch, E., Cohen, L. G., Benecke, R., & Classen, J. (2000). Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 123(Pt 3), 572584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talelli, P., Ewas, A., Waddingham, W., Rothwell, J. C., & Ward, N. S. (2008). Neural correlates of age-related changes in cortical neurophysiology. NeuroImage, 40(4), 17721781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokimura, H., Di Lazzaro, V., Tokimura, Y., Oliviero, A., Profice, P., Insola, A., … Rothwell, J. C. (2000). Short latency inhibition of human hand motor cortex by somatosensory input from the hand. The Journal of Physiology, 523(Pt 2), 503513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veronezi, B. P., Moffa, A. H., Carvalho, A. F., Galhardoni, R., Simis, M., Benseñor, I. M., … Brunoni, A. R. (2016). Evidence for increased motor cortical facilitation and decreased inhibition in atypical depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 134(2), 172182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walton, N., & Maguire, J. (2019). Allopregnanolone-based treatments for postpartum depression: Why/how do they work? Neurobiology of Stress, 11, 100198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S. A., Lockwood, R. J., Thickbroom, G. W., & Mastaglia, F. L. (1993). The muscle silent period following transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 114(2), 216222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, L.-L., Shen, H., Liu, L., Wang, L., Li, B., Fang, P., … Hu, D. (2012). Identifying major depression using whole-brain functional connectivity: A multivariate pattern analysis. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 135(Pt 5), 14981507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziemann, U., Rothwell, J. C., & Ridding, M. C. (1996). Interaction between intracortical inhibition and facilitation in human motor cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 496(Pt 3), 873881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kinjo et al. supplementary material

Kinjo et al. supplementary material 1

File 65 KB

Kinjo et al. supplementary material

Kinjo et al. supplementary material 2

File 267 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 862
Total number of PDF views: 207 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 03rd December 2020 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation neurophysiology of patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation neurophysiology of patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation neurophysiology of patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *