A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

In treatment-resistant depression, commonly defined as a lack of response to two or more consecutive treatments during the current depressive episode, the percentage of patients with remission is low and the percentage with relapse is high. The efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray as compared with extended-release quetiapine augmentation therapy, both in combination with ongoing treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), in patients with treatment-resistant depression are unknown. In an open-label, single-blind (with raters unaware of group assignments), multicenter, phase 3b, randomized, active-controlled trial, we assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive flexible doses (according to the summary of product characteristics) of esketamine nasal spray (esketamine group) or extended-release quetiapine (quetiapine group), both in combination with an SSRI or SNRI. The primary end point was remission, defined as a score of 10 or less on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), at week 8 (scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating more severe depression). The key secondary end point was no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8. All patients were included in the analysis; patients who discontinued the trial treatment were considered as having had an unfavorable outcome (i.e., they were grouped with patients who did not have remission or who had a relapse). Analyses of the primary and key secondary end points were adjusted for age and number of treatment failures. Overall, 336 patients were assigned to the esketamine group and 340 to the quetiapine group. More patients in the esketamine group than in the quetiapine group had remission at week 8 (91 of 336 patients [27.1%] vs. 60 of 340 patients [17.6%]; P = 0.003) and had no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8 (73 of 336 patients [21.7%] vs. 48 of 340 patients [14.1%]). Over 32 weeks of follow-up, the percentage of patients with remission, the percentage of patients with a treatment response, and the change in the MADRS score from baseline favored esketamine nasal spray. The adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of the trial treatments. In patients with treatment-resistant depression, esketamine nasal spray plus an SSRI or SNRI was superior to extended-release quetiapine plus an SSRI or SNRI with respect to remission at week 8. (Funded by Janssen EMEA; ESCAPE-TRD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338321.).

Postingestive nutrient sensing can induce food preferences. However, much less is known about the ability of postingestive signals to modulate food-seeking behaviors. Here we report a causal connection between postingestive sucrose sensing and vagus-mediated dopamine neuron activity in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), supporting food seeking. The activity of VTA dopamine neurons increases significantly after administration of intragastric sucrose, and deletion of the NMDA receptor in these neurons, which affects bursting and plasticity, abolishes lever pressing for postingestive sucrose delivery. Furthermore, lesions of the hepatic branch of the vagus nerve significantly impair postingestive-dependent VTA dopamine neuron activity and food seeking, whereas optogenetic stimulation of left vagus nerve neurons significantly increases VTA dopamine neuron activity. These data establish a necessary role of vagus-mediated dopamine neuron activity in postingestive-dependent food seeking, which is independent of taste signaling.

Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder manifesting as lifelong deficits in social communication and interaction, as well as restricted repetitive behaviors, interests and activities. While there are no specific pharmacological or other physical treatments for autism, in recent years repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), a technique for non-invasive neuromodulation, has attracted interest due to potential therapeutic value. Here we report the results of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the use of rTMS to treat ASD. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Bielefeld Academic Search, and Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse. Search terms reflected diagnoses and treatment modalities of interest. Studies reporting use of rTMS to treat core ASD or cognitive symptoms in ASD were eligible. Two researchers performed article selection and data extraction independently, according to PRISMA guidelines. Changes in ASD clinical scores or in cognitive performance were the main outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis models were performed. Results: We found 23 eligible reports, comprising 4 case-reports, 7 non-controlled clinical trials, and 12 controlled clinical trials, comparing the effects of real TMS with waiting-list controls (n = 6) or sham-treatment (n = 6). Meta-analyses showed a significant, but moderate, effect on repetitive and stereotyped behaviors, social behavior, and number of errors in executive function tasks, but not other outcomes. Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of subject- and evaluator-blinding to treatment allocation. Only 5 studies reported stability of these gains for periods of up 6 months, with descriptions that improvements were sustained over time. Conclusions: Existing evidence supports that TMS could be useful to treat some dimensions of ASD. However, such evidence must be regarded with care, as most studies did not adequately control for placebo effects. Moreover, little is known regarding the most effective stimulation parameters, targets, and schedules. There is an urgent need for further randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials, with adequate follow-up periods, to test the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat these disorders. Available evidence must be regarded as preliminary and insufficient, at present, to support offering TMS to treat ASD.