transcranial magnetic stimulation - supercoder · single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation...

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Medical Policy (Effective 12/01/2013) 1

Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2013 United HealthCare Services, Inc.

MEDICAL POLICY

TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This Medical Policy provides assistance in interpreting UnitedHealthcare benefit plans. When deciding coverage, the enrollee specific document must be referenced. The terms of an enrollee's document (e.g., Certificate of Coverage (COC) or Summary Plan Description (SPD)) may differ greatly. In the event of a conflict, the enrollee's specific benefit document supersedes this medical policy. All reviewers must first identify enrollee eligibility, any federal or state regulatory requirements and the plan benefit coverage prior to use of this Medical Policy. Other Policies and Coverage Determination Guidelines may apply. UnitedHealthcare reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify its Policies and Guidelines as necessary. This Medical Policy is provided for informational purposes. It does not constitute medical advice. UnitedHealthcare may also use tools developed by third parties, such as the MCG™ Care Guidelines, to assist us in administering health benefits. The MCG™ Care Guidelines are intended to be used in connection with the independent professional medical judgment of a qualified health care provider and do not constitute the practice of medicine or medical advice. COVERAGE RATIONALE Transcranial magnetic stimulation is unproven for treating all conditions including the following:

• Chronic neuropathic pain • Depression and other psychiatric disorders • Dystonia • Epilepsy • Headaches • Parkinson’s disease • Stroke • Tinnitus

A review of the technology as a whole, inclusive of several devices and protocols that have been tested in scientific studies, suggests there is insufficient evidence that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is beneficial for health outcomes in patients with major depression. There is a

Policy Number: 2013T0536F Effective Date: December 1, 2013

Related Medical Policies: • Deep Brain

Stimulation • Vagus Nerve

Stimulation Related Behavioral Health Guideline: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Major Depressive Disorder

Table of Contents COVERAGE RATIONALE........................................... BACKGROUND........................................................... CLINICAL EVIDENCE................................................. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION............... CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)....................................................... APPLICABLE CODES................................................. REFERENCES............................................................ POLICY HISTORY/REVISION INFORMATION..........

2 2 14 15 15 16 25

http://ubhweb.uhc.com/ubh/clinical_policy_standards/nw_techs/reviews/rTMS_%20for_%20MajorDepressiveDisorder.pdf

https://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ProviderII/UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/Tools and Resources/Policies and Protocols/Medical Policies/Medical Policies/Deep_Brain_Stimulation .pdf

https://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ProviderII/UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/Tools and Resources/Policies and Protocols/Medical Policies/Medical Policies/Vagus_Nerve_Stimulation.pdf



lack of evidence of an enduring treatment effect. Furthermore, some of the randomized sham controlled trials failed to find any significant treatment effect. In addition, there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that TMS results in treatment effects equivalent or superior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), an established treatment alternative for patients with highly treatment resistant depression. Some methodological concerns have been raised about the studies of TMS for treating depression. These include small sample size, lack of adequately blinded sham comparison in randomized controlled trials, and variable use of outcome measures. Further well-designed clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required to establish that transcranial magnetic stimulation results in improved long-term health outcomes in patients with depression. Additional evidence is also needed to determine optimal patient selection criteria for TMS. Some studies have examined the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating disorders other than depression. However, because of limited studies and small sample size there is insufficient data to conclude that transcranial magnetic stimulation is beneficial for treating these conditions. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is unproven for treatment planning or for diagnosing motor neuron diseases or neurological disorders. There is limited information from the peer-reviewed published medical literature to conclude that navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation is an effective clinical diagnostic test. Most published studies involve a small number of patients. Additional studies with larger populations are needed to evaluate how this test can reduce clinical diagnostic uncertainty or impact treatment planning. BACKGROUND Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was originally introduced in 1985 as a noninvasive and safe way to stimulate the cerebral cortex. Activation of the motor cortex by transcranial magnetic stimulation produces contralateral muscular-evoked potentials (MEPs), thus providing a valuable tool for functional mapping of the motor cortex. Technological advances introduced generators capable of producing rapid, repetitive pulses of magnetic stimulation. The magnetic field pulses pass unimpeded through the hair, skin, and skull and into the brain where they induce an electrical current to flow inside the brain without seizures or need for anesthesia. The amount of electricity created is very small and cannot be felt by the patient, but the electric charges cause the neurons to become active and are thought to lead to the release of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. Repetitive TMS has been advanced as a monotherapy or adjunctive treatment for patients with major depression, but it is also currently under investigation as a treatment for several other disorders originating in the cerebral cortex. TMS is delivered by various available devices, and treatment has been tested using a variety of protocols, including high frequency delivered over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, low frequency delivered over the right or left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, bi-lateral delivery, and deep TMS in which deeper prefrontal regions are stimulated. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is being studied as a diagnostic tool to stimulate functional cortical areas at precise anatomical locations to induce measurable responses. This technology is being investigated to map functionally essential motor areas for diagnostic purposes and for treatment planning. CLINICAL EVIDENCE Therapeutic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation High Frequency Left-Sided TMS for Depression Berlim et al. (2013a) systematically and quantitatively assessed the efficacy of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) for major depression (MD) based on randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) across multiple HF-rTMS devices. Data from 29 RCTs were included, totaling 1371 patients with MD. Following approximately 13 sessions, 29.3% and 18.6% of patients receiving HF-rTMS were classified as responders and



remitters, respectively (compared with 10.4% and 5% of those receiving sham rTMS). HF-rTMS was found to be equally effective as an augmentation strategy or as a monotherapy for MD, and when used in samples with primary unipolar MD or in mixed samples with unipolar and bipolar MD. Also, alternative stimulation parameters were not associated with differential efficacy estimates. Moreover, baseline depression severity and drop-out rates at study end were comparable between the HF-rTMS and sham rTMS groups. Finally, heterogeneity between the included RCTs was not statistically significant. The authors concluded that HF-rTMS seems to be associated with clinically relevant antidepressant effects and with a benign tolerability profile. This review examined the efficacy of HF-rTMS immediately after study end, and thus cannot estimate the stability of its medium to long-term antidepressant effects. Future studies should include longer follow-up periods (e.g. greater than 6–12 months) in order to establish the medium- to long-term effectiveness of HF-rTMS. Berlim et al. (2013d) conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the utility of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) used as a strategy to accelerate and improve clinical response to antidepressants. Data were obtained from 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totaling 392 patients with major depression. Two time points were considered: the end of the add-on HF-rTMS stimulation period (T1) and the end of the study (T2), which was, on average, roughly 7 weeks (M = 6.80 ± 3.11) following start of combined rTMS + antidepressant treatment. For T1, 6 studies reported on response and 4 on remission rates. The authors found significantly higher response rates for active HF-rTMS (43.3%; 84/194) compared to sham rTMS (26.8%; 53/198); however, remission rates did not differ between groups. For study end (T2), 5 studies reported on response and 4 on remission rates; overall, response rates at T2 were significantly higher for subjects receiving HF-rTMS in comparison to those receiving sham rTMS (62% [104/168] and 46% [79/172], respectively). Also, 53.8% (57/106) and 38.64% (36/107) of subjects receiving active HF-rTMS and sham rTMS, respectively, were in remission at T2. The authors concluded that HF-rTMS is a promising strategy for accelerating clinical response to antidepressants in major depression, providing clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of other agents such as triiodothyronine and pindolol. Additional well designed, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine if combining TMS with antidepressants has a greater effect than when TMS or antidepressants are used alone. Schutter (2009) performed a meta-analysis that included 30 double-blind sham-controlled parallel studies of multiple high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation devices with 1164 patients comparing the percentage change in depression scores from baseline to endpoint of active versus sham treatment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the clinical efficacy of fast-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in depression. According to the authors, the findings of the meta-analysis showed that high-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC is superior to sham in the treatment of depression. The effect size is robust and comparable to at least a subset of commercially available antidepressant drug agents. However, at this point caution should be exercised because the integrity of blinding and the lack of a proper control condition are considered limitations of rTMS trials. In addition, age bias, medication, suboptimal stimulation parameters, lack of biological information and follow-up assessments may stand in the way of understanding the effects of rTMS. In a randomized, controlled study, George et al. (2010) compared sham to active high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rTMS) in 199 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were anti-depressant free. In a 2-week lead in phase, no treatment or drugs were allowed other than minimal use of sedatives, hypnotics, or anxiolytics. In phase 1, active or sham TMS was delivered daily for three weeks, and patients achieving a reduction of ≥ 30% in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD)-24 score could continue assigned treatment for an additional three weeks. Compared with patients receiving shamtreatment, patients receiving active rTMS demonstrated significantly greater improvement in mean scores for rating and improvement scales. Active rTMS led to higher rates of response (15% versus 5%) and remission (14% versus 5%) than sham treatment. There was a 10.5% drop-out rate (12% in TMS group and 9% in Sham group). Drop-outs were due to adverse effects in 5.4% (all in TMS group). A limitation of this study is author affiliation with manufacturers of TMS



devices. In addition, the manufacturer provided equipment used in the study. It is also unclear from the study how long the clinical benefit lasts once achieved. O’Reardon, et al. (2007) conducted a multi-site, randomized controlled study of 301 medication–free patients with MDD who had not benefitted from prior treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is effective in the acute treatment of major depression. Patients were randomized in a double blind study to active HFL-rTMS (n=155) or sham rTMS (n=146). Patients received rTMS sessions five times a week for 4 to 6 weeks as the initial primary study endpoint. Patients with less than 25% reduction in baseline symptoms based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score were crossed-over to the open label two week acute treatment continuation at four weeks. The authors reported that improvements in HAMD and MADRS scores were superior to the sham group. A significant difference in remission rates was not detected at 4 weeks. However, the remission rate was higher for the active group at 6 weeks than for the sham group. Limitations of this study included the following: low number of patients at the 6 week time point due to high rate of patients electing to enter open-label study at the 4 week time period; no follow-up after end of treatment; complete randomization only through week 4; and the study was supported by manufacturer. Four follow-up reports and studies related to the O’Reardon (2007) randomized controlled trial (RCT) were identified: an open-label extension study from the RCT (Avery et al. 2008); an analysis of clinical predictors of rTMS outcome from the RCT and the open-label extension study (Lisanby et al. 2009), and an analysis of safety data from the RCT, the open-label extension study, and a 6-month durability-of-effect study (Janicak et al. 2008). All studies were funded by the manufacturer. A large number of patients left the RCT for the open-label study. This prevented making further valid efficacy comparisons from RCT data. Data from the open-label study are of limited value, because they provide no means for valid comparison to a control group. Lisanby et al. (2009) reported that a lower degree of medication resistance in the current episode was a strong predictor for positive response to treatment with rTMS. Shorter duration of current major depressive episode (MDE) was associated with a better outcome in the RCT. No deaths or seizures occurred in the RCT or open-label extension trials. Janicak et al. (2010) assessed the durability of antidepressant effect after acute response to TMS in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) using protocol-specified maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. Three hundred one patients were randomly assigned to active TMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or sham TMS in a 6-week, controlled trial. Non-responders could enroll in a second, 6-week, open-label study. Patients who met criteria for partial response during either the sham-controlled or open-label study (n = 142) were tapered off TMS over 3 weeks, while simultaneously starting maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. Patients were then followed for 24 weeks in a naturalistic follow-up study examining the long-term durability of TMS. During this durability study, TMS was readministered if patients met prespecified criteria for symptom worsening. Relapse was the primary outcome measure. Ten of 99 patients relapsed. Thirty-eight (38.4%) patients met criteria for symptom worsening and 32/38 (84.2%) reachieved symptomatic benefit with adjunctive TMS. Safety and tolerability were similar to acute TMS monotherapy. The authors concluded that these initial data suggest that the therapeutic effects of TMS are durable and that TMS may be successfully used as an intermittent rescue strategy to preclude impending relapse. A limitation of this study included the lack of a controlled comparison since the two groups were no longer fully randomized after entry in the long-term trial. Carpenter et al. (2012) conducted an observational study that included 42 US-based clinical TMS practice sites that treated 307 outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD), and a failure to show satisfactory improvement from antidepressant medication (defined as an average of 2.5 antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration in the current episode). Treatment was based on the labeled procedures of the approved TMS device, which meant all clinicians initiated treatment with left-sided high-frequency stimulation, though this protocol could be later modified for tolerability or logistical reasons, or as a consequence of clinician-determined variation in practice technique. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 2, at the point of maximal



acute benefit, and at week 6 for those patients (22%) treated beyond 6 weeks. There was a significant change in clinician-assessed response rate (CGI-S) from baseline to end of treatment. CCGI-S was 58.0% and remission rate was 37.1%. Patient-reported response rate ranged from 56.4 to 41.5% and remission rate ranged from 28.7 to 26.5%. The authors concluded that outcomes demonstrated response and adherence rates similar to populations in published controlled trials despite the non-research population showing greater illness morbidity. According to the authors, these data indicate that TMS is an effective treatment for those unable to benefit from initial antidepressant medication. Though not studied specifically, the authors also suggest that the high adherence rate supports the relatively high tolerability of TMS treatment by patients in a non-research setting. The observational naturalistic study design, while having the strength of demonstrating TMS in real-world settings, also does not allow for definitive conclusions of the effectiveness of TMS compared to other treatments or sham treatments. Additional limitations of the study include that the majority of the patients receiving TMS treatment also received antidepressant medication, making it difficult to identify the relative benefits of each treatment. In addition, follow-up after the end of treatment in this population was not demonstrated. Low Frequency Right-Sided TMS for Depression Berlim et al. (2013c) conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) for treating major depression (MD). Data were obtained from eight RCTs, totaling 263 patients with MD. After an average of 12.6±3.9 rTMS sessions, 38.2% (50/131) and 15.1% (20/132) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS, respectively, were classified as responders. Also, 34.6% (35/101) and 9.7% (10/103) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as remitters. Sensitivity analyses have shown that protocols delivering >1200 magnetic pulses in total as well as those offering rTMS as a monotherapy for MD were associated with higher rates of response to treatment. The authors concluded that LF-rTMS is a promising treatment for MD, as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of standard antidepressants and high-frequency rTMS. Additional research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. In a randomized, controlled, two-arm, clinical trial, Aguirre et al. (2011) evaluated 34 major depression patients who were randomly assigned to receive 20 sessions of real or sham TMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as adjuvant treatment to pharmacotherapy. Blinded external evaluators administered the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Both treatment groups significantly improved, although there were no statistical differences between them. In the real TMS group patients age inversely correlated with improvement of depressive symptoms at the end of the study. The percentage of decrease in scores on the Hamilton Scale was greater in subjects younger than 45 years old vs. others. These real TMS subgroups did not differ significantly in their history of previous depressive disorders, or in the refractoriness indicators of the current episode. The authors concluded that only younger patients benefited from low-frequency TMS as adjuvant treatment to antidepressants in this study. The extremely small sample size limits the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Bilateral TMS for Depression Berlim et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis on the efficacy of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression (MD). Data were obtained from seven RCTs, totaling 279 patients with MD. After an average of 12.9 sessions, 24.7% (40/162) of patients receiving active bilateral rTMS and 6.8% (8/117) of patients receiving sham rTMS were classified as responders. Also, 19% (23/121) and 2.6% (2/77) of subjects were remitters following active bilateral rTMS and sham rTMS, respectively. The authors did not find significant differences efficacy- and acceptability-wise between active bilateral and unilateral rTMS at study end. The authors concluded that bilateral rTMS is a promising treatment for MD as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable with those of standard antidepressants and unilateral rTMS. Additional well designed, randomized controlled trials evaluating bilateral rTMS are needed to further describe safety and clinical outcomes. Multiple or Unspecified TMS Protocols for Depression



Allan et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of TMS in the treatment of depression. Thirty-one studies of multiple devices were included with a cumulative sample of 815 active and 716 sham TMS courses. The authors found a moderately sized effect of TMS compared to sham treatment, but with significant variability between study effect sizes. Including relevant study variables in meta-regressions did not find any predictors of treatment efficacy. Nine studies included follow-up data with an average follow-up time of 4.3 weeks; there was no mean change in depression severity between the end of treatment and follow-up and no heterogeneity in outcome, suggesting a short-term sustained effect. According to the authors, TMS appears to be an effective treatment but without further decrease in depression severity after a 4 week follow-up. The authors stated that problems with finding a suitably blinded and ineffective placebo condition may have confounded the published effect sizes and concluded that if the TMS effect is specific, only further large double-blind randomized controlled designs with systematic exploration of treatment and patient parameters will help to define optimum treatment indications and regimen. Lam, et al. (2008) analyzed 24 studies which evaluated rTMS as an intervention for treatment-resistant depression, and determined that rTMS provided benefit during treatment lasting up to 4 weeks, but that the response rate as measured by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores was low as was the remission rate. The authors also noted that the reviewed studies failed to conduct adequate longer-term follow-up to confirm the persistence of therapeutic effect. They concluded that additional study was needed to determine whether rTMS could be considered a first-line monotherapy. Mantovani et al. (2012) examined the long-term durability of TMS using a TMS taper protocol and either continuation pharmacotherapy or naturalistic follow-up. Patients were remitters from an acute double-blind sham-controlled trial of TMS (n = 18), or from an open-label extension in patients who did not respond to the acute trial (n = 43). Long-term durability of TMS acute effect was examined in remitters over a 12-week follow-up. Of 61 remitters in the acute trial, five entered naturalistic follow-up and 50 entered the TMS taper. Thirty-two patients completed TMS taper. At the 3-month visit, 29 of 50 (58%) were classified as in remission, two of 50 (4%) were classified as partial responders, and one of 50 (2%) met criteria for relapse. During the entire 3-month follow-up, five of the 37 patients relapsed, but four of them regained remission by the end of the study. The average time to relapse in these five patients was 7.2 ± 3.3 weeks. Patients who relapsed had higher depression scores at 1 month. The authors concluded that while one third of the sample was lost to follow-up, the results demonstrate that most patients contributing to observations experienced persistence of benefit from TMS followed by pharmacotherapy or no medication. According to the authors, longer follow-up and more rigorous studies are needed to explore the true long-term durability of remission produced by TMS. However, with such a high rate of individuals lost to follow-up, it is not known what the true durability of effect was in the entire treated population. TMS Compared to Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) for Depression Berlim et al. (2013b) conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treating major depression (MD). Data were obtained from 7 randomized trials, totalling 294 patients with MD. After an average of 15.2 HF-rTMS and 8.2 ECT sessions, 33.6% (38/113) and 52% (53/102) of subjects, respectively, were classified as remitters. The associated Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for remission was 6 and favored ECT. Also, reduction of depressive symptomatology was significantly more pronounced in the ECT group. No differences on dropout rates for HF-rTMS and ECT groups were found. The authors concluded that ECT seems to be more effective than HF-rTMS for treating MD, although they did not differ in terms of dropout rates. According to the authors, future comparative trials with larger sample sizes and better matching at baseline, longer follow-ups and more intense stimulation protocols are warranted. Slotema et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis using data from randomized, sham-controlled studies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for depression (34 studies). Studies of rTMS versus electroconvulsive treatment (ECT, 6 studies) for depression



were meta-analyzed. Standardized mean effect sizes of rTMS versus sham were computed based on pretreatment-posttreatment comparisons. The mean weighted effect size of rTMS versus sham for depression was 0.55. Monotherapy with rTMS was more effective than rTMS as adjunctive to antidepressant medication. ECT was superior to rTMS in the treatment of depression. Side effects were mild, yet more prevalent with high-frequency rTMS at frontal locations. The authors concluded that it is time to provide rTMS as a clinical treatment method for depression. In a comparative review, Minichino et al. (2012) investigated and compared the efficacy and tolerability of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (deepTMS) in drug-free patients with pharmacoresistant unipolar depression. Nine studies met the author’s inclusion criteria and were evaluated: 4 studies of ECT (160 subjects), 5 studies of high frequency rTMS delivered over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (211 patients), 2 studies of deepTMS (58 patients). Three independent reviewers extracted results and assessed the quality of methodological reporting of selected studies, evaluating clinical response on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), neuropsychological effects measured using a variety of cognitive assessments, remission rate based on the HDRS, and tolerability based on drop-out rate. The comparative evaluation of (HDRS) percentage variations showed ECT to be the most effective method after 4 weeks of therapy, followed by deepTMS and rTMS. DeepTMS and rTMS showed stable improvement in cognitive performance over 4 weeks, while ECT patients showed a decrease at 2 weeks and then a slight increase from 2-4 weeks. ECT treatment and deepTMS showed equal percentages of remitted patients, with a percentage (29%) two times higher than that in the rTMS group (14%). DeepTMS shows the poorest tolerability, with a drop-out rate of 19%, followed by ECT (13%) According to the authors, rTMS seemed to provide a better tolerability (7% drop-out rate), but with lower therapeutic efficacy. According to the authors, lack of data on the long-term effects of rTMS and deepTMS limits the completeness of this investigation. Hansen et al. (2011) compared the antidepressant efficacy and adverse effects of right prefrontal low-frequency rTMS with that of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Sixty inpatients with major depression were randomized to 15 days of rTMS or 9 ECTs. The authors found that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was significantly less effective than ECT, but ECT had more adverse effects on cognitive function. The authors stated that this outcome does not point to right frontal low-frequency rTMS using the present stimulus design as a first-line substitute for ECT, but rather as a treatment option for patients with depression who are intolerant to other types of treatment or not accepting ECT. Agency Reviews A 2012 ECRI Institute Emerging Technology Report evaluated the evidence on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) using the NeuroStar TMS Therapy System as a second-line treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) that have not responded adequately to one prior antidepressant given at or above the recommended minimal dose. According to the report, the available evidence is insufficient to definitively conclude whether rTMS alone produces a clinically meaningful or statistically significant improvement in response, remission, or quality of life compared to sham for treatment of major depressive disorder (ECRI 2012). Hayes reviewed the literature through May 2010 and concluded that there is some evidence from a number of randomized, sham-controlled trials that TMS may have some short term antidepressive effect in adult patients with drug-resistant depression, with average response and remission rates of 36% and 24%. However, improvement was generally seen in some but not all outcome measures and assessment time points, and not all of the studies demonstrated a clear treatment effect. In addition, these studies were relatively small, may not have had adequate blinding, varied with respect to type of TMS and treatment protocol, and did not provide extended follow up after treatment. Multiple confounding factors may have played a role in what appears to be the treatment effect of TMS. In summary, Hayes reviewed 16 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled studies involving 1444 patients with major depression assessed low-frequency right-



sided TMS (LFR-TMS) (4 studies; 235 patients), high-frequency (≥ 1 Hz) left-sided TMS (HFL-TMS) (11 studies; 1077 patients), low-frequency left-sided TMS (LFL-TMS) (1 study; 45 patients) and/or bilateral TMS (3 studies; 172 patients). To evaluate the antidepressant effects of treatment, each study employed one to six depression measures, which varied among studies. Compared with sham TMS, at least one active TMS approach led to significantly greater improvement in scores on one or more depression measures in 14 studies (Klein et al., 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Koerselman et al., 2004; Rossini et al., 2005a; Rossini et al., 2005b; Rumi et al., 2005; Avery et al., 2006; Fitzgerald et al., 2006; McDonald et al., 2006; O’Reardon et al., 2007; Stern et al., 2007; Jorge et al., 2008; George et al., 2010; Pallanti et al., 2010). However, in five of these 14 studies, improvement was similar between active TMS and sham TMS on one of three (Klein et al., 1999; McDonald et al., 2006), one of four (George et al., 2010), or three of six (Fitzgerald et al., 2003; O’Reardon et al., 2007) depression measures. Thus, demonstrated improvement may depend at least partly on the particular depression measure(s) used. The remaining two studies found no significant difference in improvement between active HFLTMS and sham TMS on any depression measures (Herwig et al., 2007; Mogg et al., 2008). According to Hayes, additional research is needed to define optimal treatment protocols, identify definitive patient selection criteria, and establish the magnitude and durability of treatment effect of TMS (Hayes, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depression, 2010). According to the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) which includes members from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and Department of Psychiatry, Emory University, Atlanta, there is sufficient class I evidence of acute efficacy for TMS in depression in medication-free unipolar depressed patients. The large body of evidence from single site small sample trials suggests that TMS may be useful clinically in moderately treatment-resistant patients, either alone or used adjunctively with medications. The WFSBP recommends that psychiatrists consider using TMS in non-psychotic adults with major depression. Typically patients will have tried and failed at least one attempt at medication therapy, although this is not required. There are only limited data about using it in a maintenance fashion after acute response (Schlaepfer, 2010). A Comparative Effectiveness Review was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults. According to the report, there was limited direct evidence for rTMS (defined as studies in which rTMS is compared head-to-head to other available treatments) when examining Tier 1 studies [studies in which patients specifically had two or more failures of prior treatment with anti-depressive medications (ADM)]. They reviewed two “fair” trials (both in MDD-only populations), one that compared ECT and rTMS, and the other that compared ECT and ECT plus rTMS. Their conclusion was that those studies showed, with “low strength of evidence,” no differences between treatment conditions for depressive severity, response rates, and remission rates between ECT and rTMS. There was no evidence of comparative effectiveness compared to any other treatments. When examining indirect evidence (i.e. not head-to-head comparative effectiveness, but comparisons between treatment and sham), the report concluded that there was evidence for superiority of rTMS versus sham in Tier 1 studies. Specifically: rTMS was beneficial relative to controls receiving a sham procedure for all three outcomes (severity of depressive symptoms, response rate, and remission rate). The report indicated that the next steps for research are to apply a consistent definition of TRD, to conduct more head-to-head clinical trials comparing nonpharmacologic interventions to one another and to pharmacologic treatments, and to carefully delineate the number of adequate treatment failures in the current episode (Gaynes et al. 2011). In 2011, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) published a Technology Assessment on TMS for depression. Based on the available evidence, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Medical Advisory Panel stated that while meta-analyses and recent clinical trials have generally shown statistically significant effects of TMS on depression outcomes, there is insufficient evidence of long term effects beyond the end of the



TMS treatment period or compared to treatment alternatives. They also conclude that as TMS has not yet demonstrated improved health outcomes in the investigational setting. The report states that for the above reasons, transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of depression does not meet the TEC criteria (BCBS, 2011). According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline on the Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults (2010), current evidence suggests that there are no major safety concerns associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for severe depression. There is uncertainty about the procedure’s clinical efficacy, which may depend on higher intensity, greater frequency, bilateral application and/or longer treatment durations than have appeared in the evidence to date. TMS should therefore be performed only in research studies designed to investigate these factors. Professional Societies The American Psychiatric Association (APA): In a clinical practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder, the APA states that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains the treatment of best established efficacy against which other stimulation treatments (e.g., vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, other electromagnetic stimulation therapies) should be compared. According to the APA, for patients whose symptoms have not responded adequately to medication, ECT remains the most effective form of therapy and should be considered [I]. Magnetic stimulation could also be considered [II]. According to the APA, a substantial number of studies of TMS have been conducted, but most have had small sample sizes, and the studies overall have yielded heterogeneous results. Further complicating the interpretation of the TMS literature is the variability in stimulation intensities (relative to the motor threshold), stimulus parameters (e.g., pulses/second, pulses/session), anatomical localization of stimulation, and number of TMS sessions in the treatment course. The three APA rating categories represent varying levels of clinical confidence: I: Recommended with substantial clinical confidence II: Recommended with moderate clinical confidence III: May be recommended on the basis of individual circumstances (Gelenberg et al. 2010). The American Academy of Neurology (AAN): The AAN’s evidence-based practice parameter for the evaluation and treatment of depression, psychosis, and dementia in Parkinson disease concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of TMS in the treatment of depression associated with Parkinson disease (Miyasaki, et al., 2006). American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP): In a practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorders, the AACAP suggests several approaches to treating MDD, including rTMS (Birmaher and Brent, 2007). Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT): In 2008-2009, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the CANMAT partnered to produce evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of depressive disorders. A section of the updated guidelines (Section IV) relates to neurostimulation therapies, including TMS, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), for treating MDD in adults. The subsection for TMS notes that in 2002, Canada approved the use of TMS for treating depressed adults who fail to respond to at least one antidepressant drug. Most available evidence pertains to the use of high-frequency left-sided TMS (HFL-TMS) for this indication. However, direct comparisons among the many open-label studies and randomized controlled studies are hampered by variations in study design and stimulation parameters. The CANMAT states that the best evidence for TMS is the relatively large (n=301) randomized trial conducted by O’Reardon et al. (2007), which found that HFL-TMS was significantly superior to sham TMS. A meta-analyses conducted by Lam et al. (2008) also demonstrates superior response and remission rates for active versus sham TMS. Study findings conflict regarding whether HFL-TMS is superior to low-frequency right-sided TMS (LFR-TMS) or whether TMS is equal to ECT for treating depression. Based on available data, the CANMAT recommended that, when using TMS for treatment-resistant MDD, the first TMS approach should



be HFL-TMS and the treatment duration should be 30 sessions (3 weeks) instead of 20 sessions (2 weeks). The CANMAT noted that there was minimal evidence regarding the use of TMS for maintaining response/preventing relapse and drew no conclusions regarding TMS for this indication (Kennedy et al., 2009). Other Conditions While the majority of clinical trials have evaluated transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression, the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation has also been studied for treating other conditions including psychiatric disorders (other than depression), chronic neuropathic pain, dystonia, epilepsy, headaches, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and tinnitus. Slotema et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis that included 17 randomized double blind sham-controlled trials of the effect of rTMS on auditory hallucinations. When measured at the end of treatment, the mean effect size of rTMS directed at the left temporoparietal area was moderate and the effect size of rTMS directed at all brain regions was small. The authors concluded that more research is needed in order to optimize parameters and further evaluate the clinical relevance of this intervention. Berlim et al. (2013e) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of rTMS for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and to generate hypotheses for more robustly powered RCTs. Data were obtained from 10 RCTs, totaling 282 subjects with OCD. The analyses showed that active rTMS seemed to be efficacious for treating OCD. Nevertheless, according to the authors, future RCTs on rTMS for OCD should include larger sample sizes and be more homogeneous in terms of demographic/clinical variables as well as stimulation parameters and brain targets. Freitas et al. (2011) performed a systematic search of studies using noninvasive stimulation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The authors concluded that TMS/tDCS can induce acute and short-duration beneficial effects on cognitive function, but the therapeutic clinical significance in AD is unclear. According to the authors, TMS/tDCS may have therapeutic utility in AD, though the evidence is still very preliminary and cautious interpretation is warranted. In a systematic review, Elahi et al. (2009) evaluated the effects of rTMS on motor signs in Parkinson's disease (PD). Ten randomized, controlled clinical trials (n=275 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. High-frequency rTMS had an effect size of -0.58 and low frequency effects were not significant. There were several limitations of this systematic review. First, the study outcomes were not uniformly reported. Second, there were considerable differences in the rTMS protocol. Moreover, the analyzed studies also varied in patient selection criteria, demographics, and duration of follow-up and stages of PD. The authors concluded that the results of the systematic review showed that high-frequency rTMS is a promising treatment of motor symptoms in PD. A large, randomized controlled trial with appropriate follow-up will be useful to further define its role in the treatment of PD. Future studies are also needed to clarify the optimal stimulation parameters, how the different stages of PD affect the response to rTMS, and the effects of rTMS on other aspects of the disease such as gait, cognition, and memory. In a Cochrane review, Meng et al. (2011) assessed the effectiveness and safety of rTMS versus placebo in patients with tinnitus. Five trials that included 233 participants met inclusion criteria. The authors concluded that there is very limited support for the use of low-frequency rTMS for the treatment of patients with tinnitus. According to the authors, more prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies with large sample sizes are needed to confirm the effectiveness of rTMS for tinnitus patients. In a meta-analysis, Leung et al. (2009) assessed the analgesic effect of rTMS on various neuropathic pain states based on their neuroanatomical hierarchy. Raw data of 149 patients were extracted from 5 (1 parallel, 4 cross-over) RCTs. The authors found that visual analog scale (VAS) scores decreased more with rTMS treatment versus sham treatment. Also, rTMS delivered with a lower frequency and in more treatment sessions appeared to provide improved analgesic



results. According to the authors, rTMS appears to be more effective in suppressing centrally than peripherally originated neuropathic pain states. In a Cochrane review, O'Connell et al. (2011) evaluated the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain. Studies of rTMS (368 participants) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low frequency stimulation is ineffective. A short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was suggested. The authors stated that this equates to a 15% reduction in pain which does not clearly exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimally clinically important difference (>15%). Marlow et al., (20132012) systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). The authors concluded that rTMS/tDCS showed analogous pain reductions as well as considerably fewer side effects compared to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved FMS pharmaceuticals. The authors stated that further work into optimal stimulation parameters and standardized outcome measures is needed to clarify associated efficacy and effectiveness. Lipton et al. (2010) assessed the efficacy and safety of a new portable single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) device for acute treatment of migraine with aura in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, two-phase, sham-controlled. A total of 201 individuals were randomly allocated by computer to either sham stimulation (n=99) or sTMS (n=102). Participants were instructed to treat up to three attacks over 3 months while experiencing aura. Thirty-seven patients did not treat a migraine attack and were excluded from outcome analyses. 164 patients treated at least one attack with sTMS (n=82) or sham stimulation (n=82; modified intention-to-treat analysis set). According to the investigators, early treatment of migraine with aura by sTMS resulted in increased freedom from pain at 2 hours compared with sham stimulation, and absence of pain was sustained 24 hours and 48 hours after treatment. The authors stated that TMS could be a promising acute treatment for some patients with migraine with aura. The study was funded by Neuralieve, manufacturer of the sTMS device. This conflict of interest limits the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. In a Cochrane review, Hao et al. (2013) assessed the efficacy and safety of rTMS for improving function in people with stroke. The review included 19 trials involving a total of 588 participants. Two heterogenous trials with a total of 183 participants showed that rTMS treatment was not associated with a significant increase in the Barthel Index score. Four trials with a total of 73 participants were not found to have a statistically significant effect on motor function. The authors concluded that current evidence does not support the routine use of rTMS for the treatment of stroke. According to the authors, further trials with larger sample sizes are needed to determine a suitable rTMS protocol and the long-term functional outcome. Hsu et al. (2011) preformed a meta-analysis to evaluate the antiepileptic efficacy of low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in medically intractable epilepsy. Eleven articles were identified, with a total of 164 participants. The authors concluded that low frequency rTMS has a favorable effect on seizure reduction, particularly evident in patients with neocortical epilepsy or cortical dysplasia. These findings require confirmation in larger studies. In a Cochrane review, Fang et al. (2013) evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of rTMS for treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Three randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a total of 50 participants were included in the review. All the trials were of poor methodological quality and were insufficiently homogeneous to allow the pooling of results. The authors concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of rTMS in the treatment of ALS. Freitas et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis that assessed the effects of high-frequency rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) to treat negative symptoms, and low-frequency



rTMS to the left temporo-parietal cortex (TPC) to treat auditory hallucinations (AH) and overall positive symptoms in refractory schizophrenia. The authors found that effect sizes for all studies were significant and moderate for positive and negative symptoms. A sub-analysis of all sham-controlled studies indicated that positive and negative symptoms showed a nonsignificant effect size. The assessment of auditory hallucinations showed a significant effect size for studies controlled by sham. According to the authors, these meta-analyses support the need for further controlled, larger trials to assess the clinical efficacy of rTMS on negative and positive symptoms of schizophrenia, while suggesting the need for exploration for alternative stimulation protocols. Diabac-de Lange et al. (2010) assessed the efficacy of prefrontal rTMS for treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Nine randomized controlled trials, involving 213 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean weighted effect size for rTMS versus sham was in the small-to-medium range and statistically significant. When including only the studies using a frequency of stimulation of 10 Hz, the mean effect size increased to 0.63. When including only the studies requiring participants to be on a stable drug regimen before and during the study, the mean weighted effect size decreased to 0.34. Studies with a longer duration of treatment (> or =3 weeks) had a larger mean effect size when compared to studies with a shorter treatment duration. The authors concluded that the results of this meta-analysis warrant further study of rTMS as a potential treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia. In a systematic review, Guse et al. (2009) assessed high frequency rTMS stimulation over the prefrontal cortex in patients with psychiatric/neurologic diseases and in healthy volunteers. The authors found that healthier patients have smaller cognitive improvements compared to patients with psychiatric/neurologic diseases. According to the authors, since the pathophysiological and neurobiological basis of cognitive improvement with rTMS remains unclear, additional studies including genetics, experimental neurophysiology and functional brain imaging are necessary to explore stimulation-related functional changes in the brain. Based on a systematic review, Pallanti et al. (2009) concluded that TMS remains an investigational intervention that has not yet gained approval for the clinical treatment of any anxiety disorder. A 2011 BlueCross BlueShield TEC Assessment evaluated TMS as an adjunct treatment for schizophrenia. The assessment found that although meta-analyses would suggest that there is at least a short-term effect of TMS on auditory hallucinations, such effects were not observed in a review of the subset of studies that attempted to examine more long-term outcomes of TMS. None of these studies showed statistically significant effects of TMS on auditory hallucinations at the end of treatment, and only one found a difference at final follow-up. According to the assessment, most of the studies of TMS are very small trials, and outcomes are assessed using a variety of assessment instruments. The assessment concluded that the available evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that TMS is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia (BlueCross BlueShield TEC Assessment, Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of schizophrenia). Several randomized controlled trial and comparative studies with small patient populations suggest that TMS treatment may improve conditions such as the following:

• stroke (Khedr et al., 2010, n=48; Kim et al., 2010, n=18; Emara et al., 2010, n=60; Wang et al., 2012, n=24; Avenanti et al., 2012, n=30

• alcohol dependence (Mishra, 2010, n=45) • Alzheimer’s disease (Ahmed et al., 2012, n=45; Rabey et al., 2013, n=15) • aphasic stroke (Weiduschat et al. 2011, number not specified; Barwood et al. 2011,

n=12) • auditory hallucinations (Bagati et al., 2009, n=40;) • auditory-verbal hallucinations (Vercammen et al., 2009, n=38) • bipolar mania (Praharaj et al., 2009, n=41) • bulimic eating disorders (Van den Eynde, 2010, n=38) • cigarette consumption, dependence and craving (Amiaz et al., 2009, n=48)



• dysphagia in hemispheric stroke (Khedr et al., 2009, n=22) • epilepsy (Sun et al. 2012, n=60) • fibromyalgia (Short et al., 2011, n=20; Mhalla et al., 2011, n=30; Lee et al. 2013, n=15) • focal hand dystonia (Borich et al., 2009, n=15) • multiple sclerosis (Mori et al., 2009, n=20) • neuropathic pain (Borchkardt et al., 2009, n=4; Andre-Obadia, 2008, n=28) • obsessive-compulsive disorder (Mantovani, et al., 2009, n=21) • Parkinson’s disease (Gonzalez-Garcia et al., 2011, n=10) • paretic hand after stroke (Takeuchi et al., 2009, n=30) • posttraumatic stress disorder (Boggio et al., 2010, n=30; Watts et al., 2012, n=20;

Isserles et al., 2013, n=30) • schizophrenia (Cordes, 2010, n=35) • spinal cord injury spasticity (Kumru et al., 2010, n=15) • tinnitus (Marcondes et al., 2010, n=20; Chung et al., 2012, n=22)

However, the limited data from these studies do not allow definitive conclusion regarding the possible benefits of TMS. Many of these studies were feasibility studies with methodological limitations including small patient populations and short-term follow-up. The findings of these studies need to be validated by randomized trials with larger patient numbers and long-term follow-up. Other randomized trials have found that TMS may be not be as effective as or superior to placebo or that TMS has no significant effect on symptoms for various conditions (Blumberger et al. 2012; Rosenberg et al. 2012; Benninger et al. 2012; Seniów et al. 2012; Shirota et al. 2013; Piccirillo et al. 2011; de Jesus et al. 2011; Benninger et al. 2011; Slotema et al. 2011; Kang JI et al. 2009; del Olmo et al., 2007; Kang BS et al. 2009a; Cantello et al. 2007; Langguth et al., 2012; Plewnia et al., 2012; Mansur et al., 2011; Hoppner et al., 2011; ). Professional Societies American Psychiatric Association (APA): In February 2004, the APA published a practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. The authors concluded that several recent studies evaluating repetitive TMS have shown promising results in decreasing auditory hallucinations. However, repetitive TMS does not have an FDA indication for the treatment of psychosis, and additional research is needed before recommending its use in clinical practice (APA, 2004). The updated APA Guideline Watch for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia does not mention TMS (Dixon 2009). The APA also published a practice guideline in July 2007 for treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. The guideline states that the available results and the technique’s non-invasiveness and good tolerability should encourage future research, but the need for daily treatment may limit the use of TMS in practice (APA, 2007). Diagnostic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Takahashi et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review to evaluate spatial accuracy and clinical usefulness of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) in brain tumor surgery in or near the motor cortex. A total of 11 studies that evaluated nTMS prior to surgery in adults were included in the review. Quality criteria consisted of documentation of the influence of nTMS brain mapping on clinical decision making in a standardized prospective manner and/or performance of intraoperative direct electrical stimulation (DES) and comparison with nTMS results. Cross-observational assessment of nTMS accuracy was established by calculating a weighted mean distance between nTMS and DES. All studies reviewed concluded that nTMS correlated well with the "gold standard" of DES. The mean distance between motor cortex identified on nTMS and DES by using the mean distance in 81 patients described in 6 quantitatively evaluated studies was 6.18 mm. The nTMS results changed the surgical strategy based on anatomical imaging alone in 25.3% of all patients, based on the data obtained in 87 patients in 2 studies. The authors conclude that the nTMS technique spatially correlates well with the gold standard of DES. Its



functional information benefits surgical decision making and changes the treatment strategy in one-fourth of cases. The studies include in the review were limited by small sample sizes. Picht et al. (2013) conducted a cohort study that compared the safety and effectiveness of preoperative nTMS with direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping during awake surgery for the identification of language areas in patients with left-sided cerebral lesions. Twenty patients with tumors in or close to left-sided language eloquent regions were examined by repetitive nTMS before surgery. During awake surgery, language-eloquent cortex was identified by DCS. nTMS results were compared for accuracy and reliability with regard to DCS by projecting both results into the cortical parcellation system. Presurgical nTMS maps showed an overall sensitivity of 90.2%, specificity of 23.8%, positive predictive value of 35.6%, and negative predictive value of 83.9% compared with DCS. For the anatomic Broca's area, the corresponding values were a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 13.0%, positive predictive value of 56.5%, and negative predictive value of 100%, respectively. The authors concluded that good overall correlation between repetitive nTMS and DCS was observed. According to the authors, noninvasive inhibition mapping with nTMS is evolving as a valuable tool for preoperative mapping of language areas. The low specificity in posterior language areas in the current study necessitates further research to refine the methodology. Tarapore et al. (2012) compared the accuracy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to direct cortical stimulation (DCS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging in 24 patients with tumors in proximity to the primary motor cortex. The patients subsequently underwent motor mapping via intraoperative DCS. Intraoperative DCS yielded 8 positive motor sites in 5 patients. The median distance between TMS and DCS motor sites was 2.13 and between TMS and MEG imaging motor sites was 4.71. In no patients did DCS motor mapping reveal a motor site that was unrecognized by TMS. The authors concluded that maps of the motor system generated with TMS correlate well with those generated by both MEG imaging and DCS. Negative TMS mapping also correlates with negative DCS mapping. The authors stated that navigated TMS is an accurate modality for noninvasively generating preoperative motor maps. This study was limited by a small sample size. Picht et al. (2012) evaluated how much impact nTMS had on the surgical planning for tumors near the motor cortex in 73 patients with brain tumors. The influence of nTMS on the surgical planning was as follows: it confirmed the expected anatomy in 22% of patients, added knowledge that was not used in 23%, added awareness of high-risk areas in 27%, modified the approach in 16%, changed the planned extent of resection in 8%, and changed the surgical indication in 3%. The authors concluded that nTMS had an objective benefit on the surgical planning in one fourth of the patients and a subjective benefit in an additional half of the patients. It had an impact on the surgery itself in just more than half of the patients. Several other comparative studies with small patient populations suggest that nTMS may be useful for mapping of the motor cortex (Krieg et al. 2013; Coburger et al. 2013; Picht et al. 2011; Kriegt et al. 2012). However, the limited data from these studies do not allow definitive conclusion regarding the possible benefits of nTMS. There is limited information from the peer-reviewed published medical literature to conclude that navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation is an effective clinical diagnostic test. Additional studies with larger populations are needed to evaluate how this test can reduce clinical diagnostic uncertainty or impact treatment planning. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration’s Neurological Devices Panel reviewed the research comparing the NeuroStar TMS Therapy System device with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and concluded that the research did not establish a risk to benefit profile that was comparable to the risk to benefit profile of the predicate device, ECT, because effectiveness had not been demonstrated. The Panel agreed that the safety profile of the device was better than of ECT



devices, but the Panel concluded that additional study was necessary to establish the device’s effectiveness. See the following Web site for more information: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/NeurologicalDevicesPanel/ucm124779.htm. Accessed August 2013. In 2008, the FDA cleared the Neuronetics NeuroStar device for use in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had failed to achieve satisfactory results from one antidepressant trial at or above the minimally effective dose and duration. See the following Web site for more information: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/K061053.pdf. Accessed August 2013. In January 2013, the FDA approved the Brainsway Deep TMS System. The Brainsway Deep TMS System is indicated for the treatment of depressive episodes in adult patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder who failed to achieve satisfactory improvement from previous anti-depressant medication treatment in the current episode. See the following Web Site for more information: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf12/K122288.pdf Accessed August 2013. In July 2011, the FDA issued a guidance document detailing special controls that should be combined with general controls to ensure safety and effectiveness of rTMS systems for treatment of patients with MDD. See the following Web site for more information: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM265272.pdf. Accessed August 2013. The FDA has not yet cleared or approved for marketing any repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation device for treatment purposes other than depression. In 2009, the FDA approved the Navigated Brain Stimulation System (NBS) System for use in pre-surgical planning for patients undergoing brain surgery. The NBS uses transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) guided by standard MR-image data, a non-invasive direct technique for functional mapping of the motor cortex. See the following Web Site for more information: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/K091457.pdf Accessed August 2013. Additional Products Neuralieve TMS device CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) Medicare does not have a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) do exist, Refer to the LCDs for Medicine: Repetitive Transcranial, Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Resistant Depression, Noncovered Services, Non-Covered Services Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for the Treatment of Depression, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Severe Depression. (Accessed August 16, 2013) APPLICABLE CODES The codes listed in this policy are for reference purposes only. Listing of a service or device code in this policy does not imply that the service described by this code is a covered or non-covered health service. Coverage is determined by the benefit document. This list of codes may not be all inclusive.

CPT® Code Description

90867 Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; initial, including cortical mapping, motor threshold

http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/NeurologicalDevicesPanel/ucm124779.htm

http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/NeurologicalDevicesPanel/ucm124779.htm

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/K061053.pdf


http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM265272.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM265272.pdf


http://cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/overview-and-quick-search.aspx?CoverageSelection=Both&ArticleType=All&PolicyType=Final&s=All&CptHcpcsCode=90867&Date=&bc=gAAAAAAAAAAAAA%3d%3d&=&















determination, delivery and management

90868 Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent delivery and management, per session

90869 Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent motor threshold re-determination with delivery and management

0310T (effective 01/01/2013)

Motor function mapping using non-invasive navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) for therapeutic treatment planning, upper and lower extremity

CPT® is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association.

Coding Clarification: Transcranial magnetic stimulation is unproven for all diagnoses. REFERENCES Aguirre I, Carretero B, Ibarra O, et al. Age predicts low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation efficacy in major depression. J Affect Disord. 2011 May;130(3):466-9. Ahmed MA, Darwish ES, Khedr EM, et al. Effects of low versus high frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cortical excitability in Alzheimer's dementia. J Neurol. 2012 Jan;259(1):83-92. Aleman, A, Sommer, IE, and Kahn, RS. Efficacy of slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of resistant auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(3):416-421. Allan CL, Herrmann LL, Ebmeier KP. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the management of mood disorders. Neuropsychobiology. 2011;64(3):163-9. American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. July 2007. Available at: http://psychiatryonline.org/guidelines.aspx . Accessed August 2013. American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Second edition. 2004 Feb. Available at: http://www.psychiatryonline.com/pracGuide/pracGuideTopic_6.aspx Accessed August 2013. Amiaz, R, Levy, D, Vainiger, D, et al. Repeated high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cigarette craving and consumption. Addiction. 2009;104(4):653-660. André-Obadia N, Mertens P, Gueguen A, Peyron R, Garcia-Larrea L. Pain relief by rTMS: differential effect of current flow but no specific action on pain subtypes. Neurology. 2008 Sep 9;71(11):833-40. Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, et al. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: a randomized trial. Neurology. 2012 Jan 24;78(4):256-64. Avery DH, Holtzheimer PE 3rd, Fawaz W, et al. A controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in medication-resistant major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(2):187-194. Avery DH, et al.Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Clinical response in an open-label extension trial. J Clin Psych 2008, 69, 441-451.

http://psychiatryonline.org/guidelines.aspx

http://www.psychiatryonline.com/pracGuide/pracGuideTopic_6.aspx



Bagati, D, Nizamie, SH, and Prakash, R. Effect of augmentatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: randomized controlled study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009;43(4):386-392. Barwood CH, Murdoch BE, Whelan BM, et al. The effects of low frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and sham condition rTMS on behavioural language in chronic non-fluent aphasia: Short term outcomes. NeuroRehabilitation. 2011;28(2):113-28. Benninger DH, Berman BD, Houdayer E, et al. Intermittent theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2011;76(7):601-609 Benninger DH, Iseki K, Kranick S, et al. Controlled study of 50-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Nov-Dec;26(9):1096-105. Berlim MT, Neufeld NH, Van den Eynde F. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): an exploratory meta-analysis of randomized and sham-controlled trials. J Psychiatr Res. 2013e Aug;47(8):999-1006. Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation accelerates and enhances the clinical response to antidepressants in major depression: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013d Feb;74(2):e122-9. Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ. Efficacy and Acceptability of High Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rtms) Versus Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) for Major Depression: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Depress Anxiety. 2013b Jul;30(7):614-23. Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and acceptability of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression. Psychol Med. 2012 Dec 3:1-10. Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Jeff Daskalakis Z. Clinically meaningful efficacy and acceptability of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating primary major depression: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013c Mar;38(4):543-51. Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Tovar-Perdomo S, et al. Response, remission and drop-out rates following high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials. Psychol Med. 2013a Mar 18:1-15. Birmaher B, Brent D, AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorders. Washington (DC): American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP); 2007. 36 p. BlueCross BlueShield Association Technology Evaluation Center. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression. Assessment Program. July 2011. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/26/26_3.pdf Accessed August 2013. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of schizophrenia, Vol. 26, Tab 6. November 2011. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/26/26_06.pdf. Accessed August 2013.

http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/26/26_3.pdf

http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/26/26_06.pdf



Blumberger DM, Christensen BK, Zipursky RB, et al. MRI-targeted repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of Heschl's gyrus for refractory auditory hallucinations. Brain Stimul. 2012 Oct;5(4):577-85. Boggio PS, Rocha M, Oliveira MO, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation with high-frequency and low-intensity repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;71(8):992-9. Borckardt, JJ, Smith, AR, Reeves, ST, et al. A pilot study investigating the effects of fast left prefrontal rTMS on chronic neuropathic pain. Pain Med. 2009;10(5):840-849. Borich, M, Arora, S, and Kimberley, TJ. Lasting effects of repeated rTMS application in focal hand dystonia. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27(1):55-65. Cantello, R, Rossi, S, Varrasi, C, et al. Slow repetitive TMS for drug-resistant epilepsy: clinical and EEG findings of a placebo-controlled trial. Epilepsia 2007;48(2):366-374. Carpenter LL, Janicak PG, Aaronson ST, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for major depression: a multisite, naturalistic, observational study of acute treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Depress Anxiety. 2012 Jul;29(7):587-96. doi: 10.1002/da.21969. Chung HK, Tsai CH, Lin YC, et al. Effectiveness of theta-burst repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating chronic tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol. 2012;17(2):112-20. Coburger J, Musahl C, Henkes H, et al. Comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative mapping in rolandic tumor surgery. Neurosurg Rev. 2013 Jan;36(1):65-75. Cordes J, Thünker J, Agelink MW, et al. Effects of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on clinical global impression in chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2010 May 15;177(1-2):32-6. Couturier JL. Efficacy of rapid-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2005 Mar;30(2):83-90. de Jesus DR, Gil A, Barbosa L, Lobato MI, et al. A pilot double-blind sham-controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with refractory schizophrenia treated with clozapine. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jul 30;188(2):203-7. del Olmo, MF, Bello, O, Cudeiro, J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in Parkinson's disease. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118(1):131-139. Dlabac-de Lange JJ, Knegtering R, Aleman A. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: review and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Apr;71(4):411-8. Dixon L, Perkins D, Calmes C. Guideline Watch. November 2009. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia. Available at: http://www.psychiatryonline.com/pracGuide/pracGuideTopic_6.aspx Accessed August 2013. ECRI Institute. Emerging Technology Evidence Report. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Using the NeuroStar System for Treating Major Depressive Disorder. April 2012. ECRI Institute. Hotline Response. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation versus Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment Resistant Depression. January 2013.

http://www.psychiatryonline.com/pracGuide/pracGuideTopic_6.aspx



ECRI Institute. Hotline Response. rTMS for treatment of various movement disorders. May 2010. Elahi, B, Elahi, B, and Chen, R. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on Parkinson motor function--systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Mov Disord. 2009;24(3):357-363. Emara TH, Moustafa RR, Elnahas NM, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at 1Hz and 5Hz produces sustained improvement in motor function and disability after ischaemic stroke. Eur J Neurol. 2010 Sep;17(9):1203-9. Fang J, Zhou M, Yang M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or motor neuron disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;5:CD008554. Fitzgerald PB, Benitez J, de Castella A, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of sequential bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):88-94. Fitzgerald PB, Brown TL, Marston NA, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(10):1002-1008. Freitas, C, Fregni, F, and Pascual-Leone, A. Meta-analysis of the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on negative and positive symptoms in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2009;108(1-3):11-24. Freitas C, Mondragón-Llorca H, Pascual-Leone A. Noninvasive brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and perspectives for the future. Exp Gerontol. 2011 Aug;46(8):611-27. González-García N, Armony JL, Soto J, et al. Effects of rTMS on Parkinson's disease: a longitudinal fMRI study. J Neurol. 2011 Jul;258(7):1268-80. Gaynes BN, Lux L, Lloyd S, et al. Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 33. (Prepared by RTI International-University of North Carolina (RTI-UNC) Evidencebased Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC056-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2011. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=787 Accessed August 2013. Gelenberg AJ, Freeman MP, Markowitz JL, et al.; Work Group on Major Depressive Disorder. Practice Guidelines. Major Depressive Disorder. Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressinve Disorders, 3rd ed. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(10S). George MS, Lisanby SH, Avery D, et al. Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder. a sham-controlled randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(5):507-516. Gross M, et al. Has repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for depression improved? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the recent vs. the earlier rTMS studies. Acta Psych Scand, 2007 116, 165-173. Guse, B, Falkai, P, and Wobrock, T. Cognitive effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review. J Neural Transm. 2009. Hansen PE, Ravnkilde B, Videbech P, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation inferior to electroconvulsive therapy in treating depression. J ECT. 2011 Mar;27(1):26-32.

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=787

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=787



Hao Z, Wang D, Zeng Y, Liu M. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;5:CD008862. Hayes. Directory. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression. June 201011. Update search July 2013. Herwig U, Fallgatter AJ, Höppner J, et al. Antidepressant effects of augmentative transcranial magnetic stimulation: randomized multicenter trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;191:441-448. Höppner J, Broese T, Wendler L, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of alcohol dependence. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;12 Suppl 1:57-62. Hsu WY, Cheng CH, Lin MW, et al. Antiepileptic effects of low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: A meta-analysis. Epilepsy Res. 2011 Oct;96(3):231-40. Isserles M, Shalev AY, Roth Y, et al. Effectiveness of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with a brief exposure procedure in post-traumatic stress disorder--a pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2013 May;6(3):377-83. Janicak PG, Nahas Z, Lisanby SH, et al. Durability of clinical benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant major depression: assessment of relapse during a 6-month, multisite, open-label study. Brain Stimul. 2010 Oct;3(4):187-99. Janicak PG, O'Reardon JP, Sampson SM, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a comprehensive summary of safety experience from acute exposure, extended exposure, and during reintroduction treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;69(2):222-32. Jorge RE, Moser DJ, Acion L, et al. Treatment of vascular depression using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(3):268-276. Kang, BS, Shin, HI, and Bang, MS. Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the hand motor cortical area on central pain after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1766-1771. Kang JI, Kim CH, Namkoong K, et al. A randomized controlled study of sequentially applied repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Dec;70(12):1645-51. Kennedy SH, Milev R, Giacobbe P, et al; Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT). Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. IV. Neurostimulation therapies. J Affect Disord. 2009 Oct;117 Suppl 1:S44-53. Khedr, E, Abo-Elfetoh, N. Therapeutic role of rTMS on recovery of dysphagia in patients with lateral medullary syndrome and brain stem infarction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009. Khedr EM, Etraby AE, Hemeda M, et al. Long-term effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor function recovery after acute ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2010 Jan;121(1):30-7. Kim BR, Kim DY, Chun MH, et al. Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition and mood in stroke patients: a double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 May;89(5):362-8.



Klein E, Kreinin I, Chistyakov A, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of right prefrontal slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression: a double-blind controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56(4):315-320. Koerselman F, Laman DM, van Duijn H, et al. A 3-month, follow-up, randomized, placebo-controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(10):1323-1328. Krieg SM, Shiban E, Buchmann N, et al. Utility of presurgical navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation for the resection of tumors in eloquent motor areas. J Neurosurg. 2012 May;116(5):994-1001. Krieg SM, Shiban E, Buchmann N, et al. Presurgical navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation for recurrent gliomas in motor eloquent areas. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Mar;124(3):522-7. Kumru H, Murillo N, Samso JV, et al. Reduction of spasticity with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jun;24(5):435-41. Lam RW, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment resistant depression: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Can J Psych, 2008 53, 621-631. Langguth B, Landgrebe M, Frank E, et al. Efficacy of different protocols of transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus: Pooled analysis of two randomized controlled studies. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Aug 22. Lee SJ, Kim DY, Chun MH, et al. The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on fibromyalgia: a randomized sham-controlled trial with 1-mo follow-up. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Dec;91(12):1077-85. Leung, A, Donohue, M, Xu, R, et al. rTMS for suppressing neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis. J Pain. 2009;10(12):1205-1216. Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, et al. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation for acute treatment of migraine with aura: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2010 Apr;9(4):373-80. Lisanby SH, et al. Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of Major Depression: Clinical predictors of outcome in a multisite., randomized controlled clinical trial. Neuropsychopharm, 2009 34, 522-534. Mansur CG, Myczkowki ML, de Barros Cabral S, et al. Placebo effect after prefrontal magnetic stimulation in the treatment of resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011 Nov;14(10):1389-97. Mantovani A, Pavlicova M, Avery D, et al. Long-term efficacy of repeated daily prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety. 2012 Oct;29(10):883-90. Mantovani, A, Simpson, HB, Fallon, BA, et al. Randomized sham-controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;1-11. Marcondes RA, Sanchez TG, Kii MA, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation improve tinnitus in normal hearing patients: a double-blind controlled, clinical and neuroimaging outcome study. Eur J Neurol. 2010 Jan;17(1):38-44.



Marlow NM, Bonilha HS, Short EB. Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review. Pain Pract. 2013 Feb;13(2):131-45. Martin JL, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of depression. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psych 2003, 182, 480-491. McDonald WM, Easley K, Byrd EH, et al. Combination rapid transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment refractory depression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2006;2(1):85-94. Meng Z, Liu S, Zheng Y, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for tinnitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5;(10):CD007946. Mhalla A, Baudic S, Ciampi de Andrade D, et al. Long-term maintenance of the analgesic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in fibromyalgia. Pain. 2011 Jul;152(7):1478-85. Minichino A, Bersani FS, Capra E, et al. ECT, rTMS, and deepTMS in pharmacoresistant drug-free patients with unipolar depression: a comparative review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2012;8:55-64. Mishra BR, Nizamie SH, Das B, et al. Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in alcohol dependence: a sham-controlled study. Addiction. 2010 Jan;105(1):49-55. Miyasaki JM, Shannon K, Voon V, et al.; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Practice Parameter: evaluation and treatment of depression, psychosis, and dementia in Parkinson disease (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2006 Apr 11;66(7):996-1002. Mogg A, Pluck G, Eranti SV, et al. A randomized controlled trial with 4-month follow-up of adjunctive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex for depression. Psychol Med. 2008;38(3):323-333. Mori, F, Codeca, C, Kusayanagi, H, et al. Effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation on spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2009. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2010) Depression: The treatment and management of depression in adults. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12329/45896/45896.pdf Accessed August 2013. Neuronetics. How TMS therapy works. Available at: http://www.neuronetics.com/Prod-How.aspx. Accessed August 2013. O'Connell NE, Wand BM, Marston L, et al. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain. A report of a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011 Jun;47(2):309-26. O’Reardon JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psych 2007, 62, 1208-1216. Pallanti, S, Bernardi, S. Neurobiology of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of anxiety: a critical review. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;24(4):163-173. Pallanti S, Bernardi S, Di Rollo A, et al. Unilateral low frequency versus sequential bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: is simpler better for treatment of resistant depression? Neuroscience. 2010;167(2):323-328.

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12329/45896/45896.pdf

http://www.neuronetics.com/Prod-How.aspx



Piccirillo JF, Garcia KS, Nicklaus J, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the temporoparietal junction for tinnitus. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Mar;137(3):221-8. Picht T, Krieg SM, Sollmann N, et al. A comparison of language mapping by preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and direct cortical stimulation during awake surgery. Neurosurgery. 2013 May;72(5):808-19. Picht T, Schmidt S, Brandt S, et al. Preoperative functional mapping for rolandic brain tumor surgery: comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation to direct cortical stimulation. Neurosurgery. 2011 Sep;69(3):581-8. Picht T, Schulz J, Hanna M, et al. Assessment of the influence of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation on surgical planning for tumors in or near the motor cortex. Neurosurgery. 2012 May;70(5):1248-56. Plewnia C, Vonthein R, Wasserka B, et al. Treatment of chronic tinnitus with θ burst stimulation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2012 May 22;78(21):1628-34. Praharaj, SK, Ram, D, and Arora, M. Efficacy of high frequency (rapid) suprathreshold repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of right prefrontal cortex in bipolar mania: a randomized sham controlled study. J Affect Disord. 2009;117(3):146-150. Rabey JM, Dobronevsky E, Aichenbaum S, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, double-blind study. J Neural Transm. 2013 May;120(5):813-9. Rodriguez-Martin JL, Barbanoj JM, Schlaepfer T, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003493. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003493. Rosenberg O, Gersner R, Klein LD, et al. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation add-on for the treatment of auditory hallucinations: a double-blind study. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2012 May 6;11:13. Rossini D, Lucca A, Zanardi R, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depressed patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychiatry Res. 2005a;137(1-2):1-10. Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, et al; Safety of TMS Consensus Group. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Dec;120(12):2008-39. Epub 2009 Oct 14. Review. Rossini D, Magri L, Lucca A, et al. Does rTMS hasten the response to escitalopram, sertraline, or venlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder? A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005b;66(12):1569-1575. Rumi DO, Gattaz WF, Rigonatti SP, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation accelerates the antidepressant effect of amitriptyline in severe depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(2):162-166. Rush AJ, et. Clinically relevant findings from STAR*D. Psych Annals 2008, 28, 188- 193. Rush AJ, et al. Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one of several treatment steps: A STAR*D report. Am J Psych, 2006 163, 1905-1917.



Shirota Y, Ohtsu H, Hamada M, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y; Research Committee on rTMS Treatment of Parkinson's Disease. Supplementary motor area stimulation for Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled study. Neurology. 2013 Apr 9;80(15):1400-5. Schlaepfer TE, George MS, Mayberg H; WFSBP Task Force on Brain Stimulation. WFSBP Guidelines on Brain Stimulation Treatments in Psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;11(1):2-18. Schutter DJ. Antidepressant efficacy of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in double-blind sham-controlled designs: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2009 Jan;39(1):65-75. Sedlackova, S, Rektorova, I, Srovnalova, H, et al. Effect of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on reaction time, clinical features and cognitive functions in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm. 2009;116(9):1093-1101. Seniów J, Bilik M, Leśniak M, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with physiotherapy in rehabilitation of poststroke hemiparesis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Nov-Dec;26(9):1072-9. Short EB, Borckardt JJ, Anderson BS, et al. Ten sessions of adjunctive left prefrontal rTMS significantly reduces fibromyalgia pain: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Pain. 2011 Nov;152(11):2477-84. Slotema CW, Aleman A, Daskalakis ZJ, et al. Meta-analysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations: update and effects after one month. Schizophr Res. 2012 Dec;142(1-3):40-5. Slotema CW, Blom JD, Hoek HW, et al. Should we expand the toolbox of psychiatric treatment methods to include Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS)? a meta-analysis of the efficacy of rTMS in psychiatric disorders. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;71(7):873-884. Slotema CW, Blom JD, de Weijer AD, et al. Can low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation really relieve medication-resistant auditory verbal hallucinations? Negative results from a large randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Mar 1;69(5):450-6. Stern WM, Tormos JM, Press DZ, et al. Antidepressant effects of high and low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007;19(2):179-186. Sun W, Mao W, Meng X, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy: a controlled clinical study. Epilepsia. 2012 Oct;53(10):1782-9. Takahashi S, Vajkoczy P, Picht T. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping the motor cortex in patients with rolandic brain tumors. Neurosurg Focus. 2013 Apr;34(4):E3. Takeuchi, N, Tada, T, Toshima, M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over bilateral hemispheres enhances motor function and training effect of paretic hand in patients after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(13):1049-1054. Tarapore PE, Tate MC, Findlay AM, et al. Preoperative multimodal motor mapping: a comparison of magnetoencephalography imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation. J Neurosurg. 2012 Aug;117(2):354-62. Van den Eynde F, Claudino AM, Mogg A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces cue-induced food craving in bulimic disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Apr 15;67(8):793-5.



Vercammen, A, Knegtering, H, Bruggeman, R, et al. Effects of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on treatment resistant auditory-verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial. Schizophr Res. 2009;114(1-3):172-179. Wang RY, Tseng HY, Liao KK, et al. rTMS combined with task-oriented training to improve symmetry of interhemispheric corticomotor excitability and gait performance after stroke: a randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Mar-Apr;26(3):222-30. Watts BV, Landon B, Groft A, et al. A sham controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder. Brain Stimul. 2012 Jan;5(1):38-43. Weiduschat N, Thiel A, Rubi-Fessen I, Hartmann A, Kessler J, Merl P, Kracht L, Rommel T, Heiss WD. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aphasic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke. 2011 Feb;42(2):409-15. POLICY HISTORY/REVISION INFORMATION

Date Action/Description

12/01/2013

• Added reference link to behavioral health guideline titled Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Major Depressive Disorder

• Updated description of services to reflect most current clinical evidence and references; no change to coverage rationale or lists of applicable codes

• Archived previous policy version 2012T0536E