Abstract
Although in the last two decades important advances have been made in understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of addictive disorders (ADs), this knowledge has not yet been translated into effective treatments, especially on the long term. Recent findings report that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), including theta burst stimulation (TBS) and deep TMS (dTMS), has emerged as a potential treatment for ADs due to its promising results in terms of craving reduction, and given its ability to induce neuroplasticity and modulate brain activity. Based on this rationale and the current evidence, rTMS can be classified as probably effective in the treatment of addiction, with promising effect size for high-frequency rTMS stimulation protocol of the DLPFC, mainly in nicotine and cocaine/stimulant-use disorders, and with some noteworthy pilot data in the area of gambling disorder. However, double-blind, sham-controlled studies are mostly needed in order to confirm these potential benefits. Interestingly, most of the efforts for rTMS in addiction have been focused on increasing activity in the DLPFC. However, decreasing activity in the MPFC and ventral striatum may also be a feasible and fruitful target to consider. Future research should identify potential parameters (i.e., duration, number of stimulation treatments, stimulation frequency, intensity, brain region of target) of stimulation in rTMS studies for the most effective and safe treatment of drug addiction. The personalization of rTMS treatments, as well as the optimization of stimulation protocols, is the main issue that will involve future research in this area.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 The Addicted Brain: From Neurotransmitters to Neural Circuits
Drug addiction, currently included in the field of Substance-Use Disorders (SUDs), can be defined as a chronically relapsing disorder, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and taking, loss of control over drug use, behavioral inflexibility, and emergence of negative emotional states (e.g., dysphoria, anxiety, irritability, anhedonia) [1]. Preclinical investigations, human neuroimaging and clinical studies have provided extensive evidence that these manifestations result from long-lasting neuroadaptations in several brain circuits, including basal ganglia, extended amygdala, and prefrontal cortex circuits [1].
Specifically, a central feature in the framework of causation of SUDs and other addictive disorders is represented by neuroadaptations in the reward neural circuitry (i.e., mesocorticolimbic dopamine (DA) system) and in the glutamatergic corticolimbic circuitry, in which the dopamine projections are embedded [2,3,4,5]. Although having diverse primary neurocircuitry and neurotransmitters targets, all addictive agents initially act by enhancing reward via increased dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) [6] and other areas of the limbic forebrain, including the amygdala and prefrontal cortex [7]. According to the incentive-sensitization theory proposed by Robinson and Berridge [4], a sensitization of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system is critically implicated in the development of drug addiction and in the emergence of craving. Craving is a multifaceted construct, known is shown to be one of the most important contributors to relapse, thus representing an important treatment target [1].
The repeated stimulation of DA pathways, induced by exposure to addictive agents, evokes plastic changes in the reward neural circuitry, which leads to hypersensitivity to drugs, as well as to drug-associated cues [4]. Indeed, preclinical studies have shown that with repeated drug exposure neutral stimuli paired with the drug (conditioned stimuli) start to increase dopamine by themselves [204,205,206,207,12]. Brain imaging studies confirm that drug-associated cues induce dopamine increases, particularly in the dorsal striatum (region implicated in habit learning and action initiation). Thus, cue-induced conditioning plays a critical role in strengthening habitual responding in drug-seeking behavior, which reflects a transition from prefrontal cortical to striatal control over responding, and a transition from ventral striatal to more dorsal striatal subregions ([13, 14]). Indeed, studies using positron emission tomography (PET) reported reduced ventral striatal D2 receptors and diminished dopamine release in patients with substance dependence [15].
The changes in striatal dopamine function are accompanied by decreased activity in several prefrontal and associated regions. Alterations and dysfunction in prefrontal circuits have been shown to underlie the loss of inhibitory control, behavioral inflexibility, and impairment in executive functioning commonly observed in individuals with SUDs. The dorsal prefrontal cortex (PFC) network, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), controls executive functioning, including decision making and self-control, while the ventral PFC network, including the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC), governs limbic arousal and emotion processing [16]. An imbalance of these two systems, specifically a hyperactive emotional processing and hypoactive executive functioning system, has been hypothesized as one of the main factors contributing to the transition to compulsive drug seeking and taking [17]. Indeed, hyperactivation of the ventral PFC network has been associated with craving [18], resulting in substance use [19], whereas hypoactivity of the left [20], as well as the right DLPFC [21], has been described in drug addicts while performing cognitive tasks, indicating impairments in executive functioning, which is modulated by the DLPFC network.
In addition to the alterations in reward neural circuitry and prefrontal circuits, SUDs are also characterized by neuroadaptations in the circuitry of the extended amygdala (central nucleus of the amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and NAc shell) and also in the lateral habenula. These changes are associated with abnormalities in neurotransmitter systems involved in stress response (e.g., corticotropin-releasing factor, CRF; neuropeptide 1, NK1; norepinephrine; and dynorphin). Engagement of these circuits and neurotransmitters leads to the emergence of negative affective states, which are manifest when the drug is removed during acute withdrawal but also during protracted abstinence [22]. Thus, negative states may powerfully motivate drug seeking via negative reinforcement and may trigger relapse even after prolonged periods of abstinence.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate that SUDs, as well as other addictive disorders rather than being expressions of a single brain region or neurotransmitter system, are mediated and maintained by alterations in multiple, integrated neural circuits, and allostatic alterations in the expression of their related neurotransmitters and molecular mediators. Therefore, effective treatments should be ideally able to address such complexity, by targeting and remodeling impaired circuits. In this perspective, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach based on combining pharmacotherapies, behavioral and cognitive interventions, and neurocircuitry-based interventions, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation, may represent a safe, effective, and feasible therapeutic option for patients with SUDs. As a neuroscientific, transdiagnostic-based approach has been proposed also for addictive disorders, including behavioral addictions [210,211,25], intermediate phenotypes of addiction, and their underlying neurobiological underpinnings, are being characterized. This can further fuel the development and use of interventions targeting these common underlying mechanisms.
2 The Rationale for Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Addictive Disorders
Although in the last two decades important advances have been made in understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of ADs, this knowledge has not yet been translated into effective treatments for these disorders. Psychosocial interventions and currently FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for alcohol- and substance-use disorders (AUD and SUDs) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes. However, not all patients respond to these treatments, and relapse rates remain high. For example, SUDs present with disturbingly high recidivism rates, estimated between 40–60%, but in some instances exceeding 90%, depending on the primary substance being abused and how one measures the time frame of the treatment outcome (www.drugabuse.gov). This has prompted the investigation of novel pharmacotherapeutic targets, mostly with unsuccessful results [14,15,16,29]. Despite all these efforts, still there are no FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine- or amphetamine-use disorders, whose treatment relies mainly on behavioral and cognitive interventions, with variable success rates [30]. Furthermore, it is important to consider that pharmacotherapies such as methadone and buprenorphine, for opioid-use disorders, and naltrexone, for alcohol-use disorders, have been shown to modulate neural circuits implicated in ADs, but they lack spatial and temporal specificity of action.
Recent findings have indicated that brain stimulation techniques can be effective in reducing craving and consumption across different substances, and may also be efficacious for behavioral addictions, given their ability to induce neuroplasticity and modulate brain activity and connectivity. The rationale for the application of rTMS in the treatment of SUDs and other behavioral addictions lies in preclinical investigations. In a seminal optogenetic study, in vivo stimulation of prelimbic cortex (PLC) reversed cocaine-induced prefrontal hypofunction, and blocked drug-seeking behaviors [31, 32] in compulsive cocaine-seeking rats. The PLC in rats is the closest functional homologue of the DLPFC and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in humans [21,22,35]. Consensus on this matter is still missing, due to the relevant large anatomical diversity between the rodent and the human frontal/anterior cortices, but both DLPFC and ACC play a major role in top-down inhibitory control and reward mechanisms. Thus, the aforementioned preclinical findings may be translated in humans by noninvasive stimulation of homologous areas (e.g., the DLPFC) [31] to test whether this intervention may reduce cocaine craving and consumption. This hypothesis has been preliminarly tested using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
The rationale of targeting the DLPFC is based also on the key role that this brain region plays in decision-making processes [36]. Addiction is associated with increased impulsivity and impaired risky decision making [37]. These decision-making processes in addiction can be modulated by rTMS on the DLPFC-enhancing inhibitory control, which may lead to a reduction in the use of substances. Therefore, the stimulation of the DLPFC by high-frequency pulses should increase its activity and its inhibitory control function. In particular, with drug-addicted subjects, this treatment should increase DLPFC function implementing the possibility to control craving and to cope with it.
The complex trajectory of addiction development from impulsive to compulsive substance use is thought to be reflected in changes in various cognitive constructs and their underlying networks, including reward processing [38], salience detection [39], executive control [39], and internal ruminations [40], with cycling phases, including binge/intoxication (i.e., reward seeking), withdrawal (negative affect) and drug-craving brain circuits and networks [1, 41]. The hypothesis of an imbalance between drive state and reward processing (so-called “Go-circuits”) and executive control (“Stop-circuits”) processes [16, 30,31,32,33,46] is a manifestation of such dysregulation. As reported by Hanlon et al. [47]) in their recent studies, two neurobehavioral systems may be targeted by TMS in order to treat substance-use disorders: an executive control system, namely, the dorsal-lateral frontal-striatal, likely involved in resisting drug use, and an impulsive system, namely, the ventral-medial frontal-striatal, likely involved in craving and use. Under this framework, a Stop system would inhibit the Go-craving system and stress system. It may therefore be useful to either increase activity in the DLPFC-dorsal striatal circuit or to decrease the activity in the ventral medial prefrontal cortex-caudate circuit using an inhibitory rTMS (1 Hz or continuous Theta Burst Stimulation, cTBS) [47]. It is therefore a possibility that the stimulation of the DLPFC could be less associated with a direct anticraving effect, probably exerting its action in terms of relapse prevention, increasing the possibility to control craving and to cope with it through a top-down mechanism.
A further aspect to consider is that targeting prefrontal areas via TMS also affects dopaminergic neurotransmission. Strafella and colleagues [48] found that high-frequency rTMS on the prefrontal cortex in humans induces subcortical release of dopamine in caudate nucleus, whereas Cho and Strafella [49] showed that rTMS over the left DLPFC modulates the release of dopamine in anterior cingulated cortex and orbitofrontal cortex in the same hemisphere. These findings have been recently confirmed in a longitudinal study investigating alcohol intake and dopamine transporter (DAT) availability in the striatum before and after deep rTMS. With respect to sham stimulation, active stimulation significantly reduced both alcohol craving and intake and DAT availability, suggesting a modulatory effect on dopaminergic terminals [50].
Also in the long-term perspective, in addicted brain where a repeated exposure to drugs has determined long-term neural adaptations, rTMS can exert its effect reverting the process of neuroadaptation. These neuroadaptations are partly associated with altered dopamine activity in the mesocorticolimbic circuitry [51] and lead to an alteration of cortical excitability [52], which have been implicated in the persistence of drug-seeking behaviors and in an increased likelihood of relapse. Repeated applications of rTMS can affect cortical excitability and increase the release of dopamine in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system, affecting neuroadaptation induced by the chronic use of substances [48, 53].
In addition to dopaminergic signaling, some of the TMS-induced effects depend on glutamatergic transmission [31, 54]. Different preclinical studies have clearly demonstrated that rTMS induced-LTP/LTD are strictly dependent on NMDA and AMPA receptor signaling [55, 56] within glutamatergic synapses within addiction-related brain areas [56, 57]. Additionally, rTMS has been shown to enhance GABA neurotransmission [58] through increased cortical inhibitory activity [59]. GABA neurotransmission is relevant in SUDs, and its modulation showed to have some potentials in terms of treatment outcomes [48,49,62].
Finally, rTMS could also exert its effects modulating the expression of neurotrophic factors, such as BDNF, an active regulator of synaptic plasticity, within cortical and subcortical areas [55]. More recently, nonsynaptic events have been suggested as mediators of rTMS long-term effects, including plasticity-related gene expression and neurogenesis [63, 64]. The role of BDNF should be also better explored, given its role in ADs [65, 66]. Whether these mechanisms are involved in rTMS-mediated effects in SUDs remains to be explored.
3 rTMS as a Therapeutic Tool in the Treatment of Addictive Disorders (ADs)
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), including theta burst stimulation (TBS) and deep TMS (dTMS), has emerged as a potential treatment for ADs due to its promising results in terms of craving reduction [56, 67]. Most studies target the DLPFC by means of excitatory stimulation in order to strengthen executive functions and cognitive control [68].
A recent meta-analysis, including data from 748 patients with SUDs, showed that left DLPFC stimulation had a significant anticraving effect with medium effect size compared with sham stimulation [67]. However, this effect was limited in duration, as indicated by a nonsignificant treatment effect at follow-up. Meta-regression indicated an association between stimulation dosage (i.e., total number of stimulation pulses) and anticraving effect, whereas the number of sessions, pulse per session, frequency, and intensity was not significant [67]. This analysis yielded a large effect size for illicit drug dependence (including cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, and cannabis), followed by a medium effect size for nicotine dependence and a small effect size for alcohol dependence [67]. Conversely, meta-analysis, including all studies for right DLPFC stimulation, showed no significant anticraving effect compared to sham stimulation [67]. Inhibitory stimulation protocols as well as dTMS had no significant effects on craving. Deep TMS is performed using a group of coils, called H coils, whose geometry and configuration allow to reach deeper brain regions [69], at the expense of focality. With regard to drug consumption, the analysis revealed that both excitatory rTMS of the left DLPFC and excitatory dTMS of the bilateral DLPFC and insula resulted in a significant reduction of substance consumption, compared with sham stimulation. Recently, other brain targets have been tested. For example, Hanlon and colleagues used continuous theta burst stimulation to attenuate MPFC activity during cue exposure [70, 71]. However, results were not supportive of an anticraving effect using this protocol.
The following sections describe trials exploring the experimental evidence for rTMS in SUD and other addictive behaviors.
3.1 rTMS in Nicotine-Use Disorder
There are three FDA-approved medications for smoking cessation, all of which promote abstinence: nicotine replacement therapies, bupropion, and varenicline. However, the outcomes are still far from satisfactory and there is ground for developments in the area of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS).
The first to investigate the efficacy of rTMS for smoking addiction were Johann and colleagues [72], who examined whether rTMS of the DLPFC could modulate tobacco craving. Following a 12-hour period of abstinence, 11 treatment-seeking smokers received either one active or one sham session of 20 Hz rTMS over the left DLPFC at 90% of MT. The session consisted of 20 trains of stimuli of 2.5 seconds. The levels of tobacco craving were assessed using a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) both 30 minutes prior to and following the rTMS treatment. rTMS significantly reduced the level of tobacco craving at 30 minutes post-treatment [72]. These findings, therefore, motivated further investigation on the efficacy of rTMS as a potential treatment in nicotine addiction, with the aim to test also whether this intervention could reduce cigarette consumption. Following this pilot study, the same research group [73] investigated the effects of two sessions of active and sham rTMS at the same parameters with a double-blind crossover design study. The second study demonstrated reduced smoking consumption following rTMS session, thus contributing to the preliminary evidence of the utility of rTMS treatment in nicotine dependence [74]. Based on these findings, the authors proposed that high-frequency rTMS could have potential therapeutic value in the treatment of nicotine dependence by reducing the levels of craving [72] and its consumption [73].
Amiaz and colleagues were also interested in evaluating the effects of high-frequency rTMS of the left DLPFC, combined with either smoking or neutral cues exposure, on cigarette consumption, dependence, and craving. Thus, there were four experimental groups: active TMS with smoking pictures, active TMS with neutral pictures, sham TMS with smoking pictures, and sham TMS with neutral pictures. The authors assessed the effects of 10 days of treatment with either active or sham 10 Hz rTMS treatment applied to the left DLPFC. Stimulation included 20 trains/day at 100% of MT and each train consisted of 50 pulses at 10 Hz. rTMS, independent of exposure to smoking pictures, reduced subjective and objective measures of cigarette consumption and nicotine dependence. However, these effects reduced gradually after completing the rTMS sessions and the reduction in cigarette use was not significant 6 months after treatment termination, although in the group of smokers who received active rTMS-smoking picture cigarette consumption was lower at 6-month follow-up compared to the other treatment groups. Overall, results from this study suggested that high-frequency rTMS over the DLPFC could reduce cigarette consumption and nicotine dependence [75].
Consistent with findings in nonpsychiatric smokers, some studies [72, 76] showed that treatment with rTMS significantly reduced craving in treatment-seeking individuals with schizophrenia, a population of smokers who are typically highly nicotine dependent. While there was a robust increase in craving following the rTMS session in the sham group (due to abstinence from smoking), post-treatment craving levels in the active group were the same or lower than the pretreatment assessment. Despite attenuation of tobacco craving, rTMS did not increase abstinence rates, thus suggesting that the number of rTMS sessions could be a critical factor modulating rTMS efficacy [76]. Rose et al. [77], instead, tested whether either excitatory and inhibitory stimulation of superior frontal gyrus (SFG) had anticraving effects, with promising results. In one of the largest studies carried out to date, Dinur-Klein et al. [78] enrolled 115 smokers to either receive, in a randomized order, 13 sessions of high-frequency, low-frequency, or sham stimulation to the lateral PFC and insula bilaterally. This stimulation was done using an H-coil for deep TMS designed to target the DLPFC and insula, crucially involved in cigarette craving [79]. High-frequency deep TMS (10 Hz), in association with smoking cues during the stimulation procedure, was found to significantly reduce cigarette consumption, as well as nicotine dependence.
While other types of brain stimulation techniques (transcranial direct current stimulation, cranial electrostimulation, and deep brain stimulation) have been evaluated in the treatment of nicotine addiction, there is more evidence to support rTMS’ potential to treat nicotine dependence. According to the criteria suggested by Brainin et al. [80], research on the therapeutic use of rTMS for nicotine dependence has one study in class II, three studies in class III, and one study in class IV that showed reduction in craving, consumption, and dependence [68]. Thus, according to the available evidence, rTMS falls within the level B recommendation as probably effective in the treatment of nicotine addiction [68].
3.2 rTMS in Alcohol-Use Disorder (AUD)
There are currently four FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for alcohol-use disorder: disulfiram, oral naltrexone, extended-release injectable naltrexone, and acamprosate. These pharmacotherapies have been approved, based on their effects in increasing abstinence more than placebo. Although these pharmacotherapies, also in combination with psychotherapies, have shown some positive findings, relapse rates are still high in patients with AUD [81]. The first brain stimulation study to test the anticraving efficacy of rTMS was carried out by Mishra and colleagues, who administered high-frequency (10 Hz) rTMS of the right DLPFC in a single-blind, sham-controlled fashion, in 45 patients with AUD [82]. The authors reported that 10 daily sessions of high-frequency rTMS over right DLPFC significantly reduced craving. This study supports the therapeutic potential of rTMS. Hoppner et al. [83] investigated the effect of high-frequency rTMS of the left DLPFC compared to sham stimulation on craving and mood in alcohol-dependent women. Nineteen female detoxified participants were randomized either to a high-frequency rTMS (20 Hz) over the left DLPFC (𝑁 = 10) or sham stimulations (𝑁 = 9) for 10 days. There were no significant differences in clinical parameters such as alcohol craving or mood after active rTMS compared to sham stimulation.
Herremans et al. [84] performed a sham-controlled, prospective, single-blind study in order to investigate the effect of single high-frequency rTMS session of the right DLPFC on alcohol craving in the community. Participants (𝑁 = 36) were alcohol-dependent inpatients. After successful detoxification, participants were allocated to receive one active or one sham rTMS session. The rTMS session (40 trains of 1.9 s at 20 Hz, 110% of MT with a 12-s intertrain interval) was administered the day prior to discharge patients for the weekend. One high-frequency rTMS session delivered to the right DLPFC did not lead to changes in craving (neither immediately after the stimulation session nor in participants’ natural environment during the weekend). This study found that application of a single rTMS session had no significant effect on alcohol craving [84]. In another study, repetitive rTMS targeting the dACC using a double cone coil reduced immediate alcohol craving and consumption [85]. In a recent study [50], a small cohort of patients was treated by bilateral dTMS. Clinical and SPECT evaluations were then carried out after 4 weeks of rTMS sessions. Patients that received the real stimulation revealed a reduction in DAT availability at T1, whereas the sham-treated group did not suggest a modulatory effect of deep rTMS on dopaminergic terminals and a potential clinical efficacy in reducing alcohol intake in AUD patients.
Based on these findings, Herremans and Baeken [86] suggested the evaluation of multiple rTMS sessions in larger, randomized, and sham-controlled population samples. Furthermore, randomized controlled studies should be done to evaluate whether patients need stimulation with high or low frequency [86].
Taken together, data regarding the efficacy of rTMS in AUD are still partial and not conclusive. According to the criteria suggested by Brainin et al. [80], there is inadequate evidence to confer a level of recommendation for its effectiveness in the treatment of AUD.
3.3 rTMS in Cocaine- and Stimulant-Use Disorder
Cocaine-use disorder (CUD) is a major public health concern, associated with high relapse rates, significant disability, and substantial mortality [87]. Chronic cocaine use is among the most difficult substance-use disorders to treat. Nearly 1 in every 7 people seeking treatment for drug abuse is dependent upon cocaine and short-term cocaine relapse rates can reach up to 75% [88]. Unfortunately, no unequivocally effective pharmacological or psychological therapies have been identified to date. At the moment, there are currently no FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine- and amphetamine-use disorders.
Advances in understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of cocaine-use disorders have unraveled that chronic cocaine use causes damage and changes in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), [89], including significant brain volume reduction [90, 91], cortical hypoactivity [16, 92, 93], impairment in executive functions, and dysregulation of neurotransmitters systems [81,82,96]. Thus, targeting the PFC via TMS appears to be a promising intervention. In the first, open-label study testing this hypothesis, high-frequency rTMS of the right (but not left) DLPFC was linked to a reduction of craving in cocaine-addicted subjects [97]. The authors investigated whether a single session of rTMS over DLPFC could reduce cocaine craving among six male participants with CUD, and also assessed effects on mood. Participants received two sessions of high-frequency (10 Hz) rTMS at 90% of MT, to the right and left DLPFC, separated by 1 week. Patients were asked to complete a set of 15 visual analogue scales (VAS) ranging from “not at all” to “more than ever.” Each VAS evaluated one of the primary or secondary endpoints on three occasions: 10 min before the intervention and immediately after and 4 h after rTMS session. This research provided the first demonstration that high-frequency rTMS applied over the right DLPFC could reduce craving associated with chronic use of cocaine.
In 2008, Politi and colleagues also performed an open-label study showing that in cocaine users (n = 36), 10 sessions of 15-Hz TMS to the left DLPFC (600 pulses, 100% resting MT, rTMT) led to a significant reduction in self-reported craving [98].
Other open-label studies confirmed these preliminary data, suggesting that rTMS of the PFC may determine a reduction in cocaine use and minimize the risk of relapse [97, 86,87,88,102, 103]. In a recent open-label study, Pettorruso et al. [104] confirmed the efficacy of high-frequency rTMS of the DLPF in CUD, showing a reduction in psychiatric symptoms that contribute to the overall clinical burden. rTMS appears to elicit its more notable effects on depressive and anxiety symptoms, confirming previous data by the same group, according to which the prohedonic effect of rTMS is crucial and directly related to the reduction of cocaine craving [100]. Future studies that assess cocaine intake after treatment are also required. According to the criteria suggested by Brainin et al. [80], there is still inadequate evidence to confer a level of recommendation for the effectiveness of this treatment.
Methamphetamine (METH) is a psychostimulant of the phenethylamine and amphetamine class of psychoactive drugs and is a widely used illicit drug, also available on the cybermarket [105, 106]. Neurotoxic effects and potentially irreversible loss of neurons and axons have been linked to the repeated exposure to moderate-to-high levels of METH [107]. Moreover, cognitive functioning under methamphetamine administration is linked to cognitive deficits and alteration of fronto-striatal and limbic pathways [107]. At the same time, METH users showed impaired cortical plasticity induced by TMS [108]. Nowadays, available treatments are limited psychosocial interventions and no medications have been approved by the FDA. NIBS have been evaluated as a potential treatment for Methamphetamine-Use Disorder (MUD) in few sham-controlled trials. High-Frequency rTMS on the left DLPFC has been proven to reduce craving [109, 110] and sleep disturbances [111] and to improve cognitive performance [112] in both male [111, 112] and female METH users [109]. At the same time, low-frequency rTMS transiently increased craving when applied on the same site [113]. Interestingly, both high- and low-frequency rTMS applied on both right and left DLPFC showed a significant effect on craving when compared to a control stimulation site (P3, of 10–20 EEG system) [114]. Unfortunately, given the high variability across studies, no recommendation may be highlighted.
3.4 rTMS in Opiate-Use Disorder
Recently, increases in opioid addiction, opioid-related morbidity, and opioid-related mortality have been reported in both USA and Europe. While the number of opioid prescriptions doubled in Europe during the last 10 years, nowadays every day 130 patients die from an overdose of prescription opioids in the USA [115]. Treatment for opioid-use disorder typically requires acute detoxification and/or opioid maintenance treatment. The two primary treatments for opioid-use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine) are designed for long-term opioid maintenance therapy. Methadone is a mu-opioid receptor agonist, whereas buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist (mu agonist-K antagonist). Given that opioid withdrawal increases brain sensitivity to TMS-induced seizures, TMS has not been deeply examined in opioid-dependent patients. However, it is important to note that currently more than 15 different studies evaluating the effects of TMS in OUD have been registered in clinical trial.gov. Moreover, it may be interesting to notice that Nucleus Accumbens (NAcc) stimulation with Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) was reported to significantly reduce heroin consumption and/or craving in single cases [102,103,118].
3.5 rTMS in Other SUDs
Cannabis is the most recreationally used drug worldwide: recreational users were approximately 3.8% of the world population in 2017. As the number of cannabis users has increased, the potency of cannabis expressed as the amount of THC has increased as well. At the same time, legalization policies led to decreased risk perception. The risk to develop a Cannabis-Use Disorder is around 10% for recreational users and is linked to increased risk of psychiatric and neurological illnesses [119]. As for Stimulants, available treatments for Cannabis-Use Disorders are limited to few effective psychosocial interventions and no medications have been approved. Even if rTMS has been shown to be safe in cannabis-dependent individuals, one single 10-Hz rTMS session on the left DLPFC did not exert any significant changes in craving when compared to sham stimulation [120].
3.6 rTMS in Gambling Disorder and Other Behavioral Addictions
Nonsubstance-related addictive disorders are frequently comorbid and share some neurobiological substrates and behavioral manifestations of substance-related addictive disorders. This is particularly true for gambling disorder (GD). It is thus an important question whether neuromodulation could change these neurobiological vulnerabilities, and thereby have clinical value for nonsubstance addictive behaviors as well [121].
GD was recognized as the first behavioral addiction, and as such was reclassified within the category of “Substance-related and Addictive Disorders,” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatric disorders (DSM-5) in 2013. In the ICD-11, gambling disorder was classified within the same supercategory of disorders due to substance use or addictive behaviors. In the DSM-5, gaming disorder was placed in the Appendix as a condition requiring more research. There is abundant evidence on similarities between GD and SUDs regarding genetics, neurobiology, psychological processes, and effectiveness of psychological treatment [122]. In GD, a neurocognitive profile showing diminished executive functioning compared to healthy controls (e.g., diminished response inhibition, cognitive flexibility) was related to differential functioning of the DLPFC and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), both part of the cognitive control circuitry [123, 124]. Moreover, increased neural cue reactivity and associated self-reported craving are present in the striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, and insular cortex in GD patients compared to healthy controls.
These abnormalities in frontostriatal functioning in GD warrant the question of whether NIBS may be a promising add-on treatment for GD and other nonsubstance-related addictive disorders [125]. Currently, a very limited number of studies have explored TMS correlates in GD. For instance, in a single-session pilot study in nine men pathological gamblers, high-frequency rTMS over MPFC reduced desire to gamble, whereas cTBS over right DLPFC reduced blood pressure, but had no effects on gambling desire [126]. Furthermore, the authors reported that rTMS and cTBS had no effect on impulsive behavior (delay discounting) while both active stimulation protocols improved Stroop interference. Also in a sham-controlled crossover high-frequency rTMS study (left DLPFC), a single session active rTMS diminished craving compared to sham rTMS [127]. Yet in another trial, low-frequency rTMS over the right DLPFC had similar effects as sham stimulation on craving, thus suggesting the occurrence of placebo effect [128]. Recently, a sustained effect (6 months) was described in a GD subject [129], along with a modulation in dopaminergic pathways. In addition, a reduction in gambling-related symptoms has been observed also in GD-CUD comorbid patients [131]. Although preliminary, rTMS shows promise in restoring gambling-related pathophysiological alterations [130], deserving further investigations in well-powered controlled studies. Moreover, rigorously conducted clinical trials are needed to investigate optimal rTMS protocols with the potential to improve cognitive functioning, to diminish craving, and/or to reduce gambling behaviors/relapses in GD. Finally, if we consider GD as a disorder characterized by loss of control with respect to striatal drives such as craving, urgency for gambling, and reward-seeking behaviors, then neuromodulation could be utilized as an intervention aimed at enhancing both cognitive control and the regulation of the reactivity to natural rewards.
4 Safety of rTMS in SUDs
The major concern about TMS safety in the treatment of SUDs is related to the risk of inducing seizures [132]. Currently, no evidence supports a TMS-related increased risk of serious or nonserious adverse events in the treatment of addictive disorders. Nonetheless, increased vigilance is always warranted when theoretical concerns exist or in specific patient subgroups with limited prior data. From a safety standpoint, while rTMS has been recently established as a safe therapeutic tool, it is important to take into account that the application of rTMS in addiction is still a nascent field. SUD patients may present with long-lasting adaptations and changes in brain circuits and given that rTMS treatment results in functional changes in brain activity, establishing the safety of rTMS protocols in SUDs patients is a relevant issue and deserves further investigation. Any medical and pharmacological factor independently increasing the risk of a seizure (e.g., stimulant use, alcohol use/withdrawal, benzodiazepine/barbiturate use/withdrawal, opioid use, tramadol use, bupropion in nicotine treatment, other psychopharmacological treatments used for comorbid psychiatric disorders) can in theory synergistically increase brain sensitivity to TMS-induced seizures.
5 Current Limitations and Future Perspectives
Based on the rationale we exposed and on the current evidence, rTMS can be classified as probably effective in the treatment of addiction, with a promising effect size for high-frequency rTMS stimulation protocol of the DLPFC mainly in nicotine- and cocaine-use disorders. However, as recently reported by a consensus of experts [125], different points need to be better explored in order to understand which specific protocol could guarantee a better outcome: (1) frequency of stimulation (high vs. low frequency); (2) laterality of stimulation; (3) area of stimulation and the role of neuronavigation; (4) number of stimulations; (5) duration of repetition interval; (6) typology of coil; (7) should TMS be administered in “resting state” or during an “induced state” such as during cue-induced craving inhibition; (8) how should the clinical efficacy of TMS be determined (e.g., drug use behavior, self-reports of craving, cognitive constructs like working memory or executive control, alterations in brain circuits and networks); (9) the role of psychiatric comorbidities other than addiction; (10) should TMS be thought of as a monotherapy or combined with pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral interventions; (11) the relevance of placebo effect and sham stimulations; (12) duration of the positive effect on the long term and the role of long-term sessions (as a relapse prevention strategy); (13) how to phenotypically subtype individuals most likely to benefit from TMS.
Stimulation parameters, such as duration, number of stimulation sessions, stimulation frequency, intensity, target brain region, and interval between treatments, should be investigated to define the dose response of rTMS. Few of these parameters have been systematically investigated for addiction treatment [125]. Among TMS studies, most of them applied 10-Hz or 20-Hz pulses, whereas a minority performed 1 Hz and intermittent and continuous TBS stimulations. Evidence from depression rTMS studies suggest that longer treatment duration and/or higher number of rTMS sessions could contribute to faster clinical improvement and better outcomes [133]. Moreover, the use of multiple rTMS sessions per day may also be a promising therapeutic development, as recently shown in depression samples [134].
Another relevant issue is that of treatment duration. There were only two studies with 1-year follow-up, six studies with 6 months’ follow-up, and four studies with 3 months’ follow-up. Twelve studies had less than 3 months’ follow-up [125]. This is a serious limitation, given that addiction is a chronically relapsing disorder.
There is very little information available from empirical studies to help guide the selection of left- or right-sided targets for neuromodulation approaches in SUDs. Most rTMS studies in SUDs have targeted the left DLPFC (following the pathway that was forged by depression researchers) [125]. In alcohol research, however, there has been a unique emphasis on stimulating the right DLPFC. Thus, the question on laterality in the treatment of addictive disorders should be put in a wider perspective, and be approached from a network perspective, where not only laterality, but also the target location is relevant. However, it has also been assumed that the left DLPFC processes reward-based motivation, whereas the right DLPFC is more involved in withdrawal-related behaviors and self-inhibition [135].
In order to establish protocols for clinically relevant long-lasting effects, an ongoing effort of research has been dedicated to exploring the effects of repeating stimulation, either by applying stimulation daily over several days or weeks, or repeating stimulation within a single daily session, separated by a critical time window [125]. In general, repeating stimulation over multiple days has demonstrated efficacy in various clinical applications, such as treatment of depression using rTMS [136, 137]. With regard to addiction studies, positive evidence also exists for lasting effects of repeated stimulation for smokers [78, 138]. However, even with these promising results, systematic or face-to-face studies comparing different repetition intervals are missing, and are crucially needed in order to determine effective repetition rates and durations. The importance of this issue also underlies the need for determining the optimal repetition intervals between sessions. In studies using TMS, the duration of the repetition interval has been found to be critical in modulating plasticity, while also avoiding homeostatic mechanisms that may limit or counteract plasticity [124,125,126,142]. For example, in a study on depression, repeating rTMS twice daily with a 15-min interval between stimulation blocks resulted in superior effects compared to a once daily application with the same number of pulses [143]. In case of addictive disorders, the number of studies investigating the effect of interval timings remains scarce. In summary, although there is promising evidence for persisting and long-lasting effects with repeated stimulation sessions, the relatively large heterogeneity of these studies with regard to stimulation technique, timing, repetition, and montage precludes a clear understanding of how repetition may affect therapeutic outcomes in SUD, warranting a need for systematic research designs [144].
The role of placebo effects and sham stimulations in rTMS is another issue specifically relevant in addiction. Participants and patients typically receive considerable information in advance about TMS and they inevitably speculate about its effects [145]. The occurrence of a placebo effect is therefore at least plausible and should be considered when evaluating rTMS efficacy, especially in light of a recent study reporting that sham rTMS has itself differential effects on neuronal activity on an individual-by-individual basis [146]. Placebo effects have been observed in different psychiatric disorders with a strong neurobiological component, including major depression [147] and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) [148]. SUDs and behavioral addictions are conditions that can be easily complicated by abnormal personality, with histrionic features that can enhance the possibility to observe a placebo effect. Moreover, the external locus of control, a typical cognitive psychological disposition frequently reported in SUDs [149], might emphasize the possibility to see in an external aid (the use of rTMS) the resolution of their disorders. Adequate sham stimulation protocols are therefore a critical factor in clinical trials to ensure that effects can be ascribed specifically to TMS. Sham TMS approaches require further development but may be sufficient in clinical settings in which patients are generally naïve to TMS [145]. There are ongoing efforts by the TMS community to evaluate and revise sham protocols in order to increase rigor across the field [150], “When to stimulate” is another issue that needs to be better defined. As suggested in a recent consensus paper [125], there are four distinct time intervals at which rTMS/tDCS interventions were administered: (1) before the participant sought standard treatment (2), while the subject was treatment seeking but before undergoing standard treatment, (3) within the first month of standard treatment (mainly detoxification and stabilization), and (4) after the initial recovery period (more than 1 month). If the definition of these time intervals appears to be clear, we are still far to know which intervention would benefit the most in terms of efficacy. For safety reason, it is of course advisable to avoid the intoxication phase and the early detoxification, specifically alcohol and opiates withdrawals.
The role of “Outcome Measures” is also of high relevance [125]. Most of the studies used craving as their primary outcome measure. Self-report on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was the most frequently used craving measure, whereas few studies used objective measures such as urine drug tests or breath analyzers. Although a reduction or elimination of the consumption of the drug is the ultimate endpoint for clinical trials research, there are also many other behavioral and biological variables that have been studied extensively and are considered meaningful surrogate endpoints for patients seeking treatment for SUDs (e.g., heightened reactivity to predictive drug cues, perseverative responding, delayed discounting for the drug, response to stress, narrowing of the behavioral repertoire) [151].
Neuromodulatory treatments have also been used for comorbidities with SUDs [152]. One group studying smoking patients with schizophrenia demonstrated that rTMS reduced cigarette cravings compared to sham [153]. Another group using rTMS for comorbid dysthymia and AUD showed decreased alcohol consumption with rTMS [154]. Perhaps a dual benefit of brain stimulation treatments targeting underlying neurobiological factors in SUDs may also extend to deficiencies found in other psychiatric disorders (i.e., nicotinic acetylcholine receptor deficits found in schizophrenia patients, associated with both higher smoking rates and cognitive dysfunction) [155]. Actually, overlapping neurobiological substrates between SUDs and psychiatric disorders [19, 156] have been widely reported.
While neuromodulatory techniques are a promising interventional approach in the treatment of SUDs, most responses are partial and even the well-documented anticraving effects of rTMS do not necessarily translate into reduced drug use or abstinence [153]. Combining neuromodulation with behavioral and pharmacotherapeutic interventions may ultimately mitigate these shortcomings [157]. Indeed, coupling pharmacological treatments with brain stimulation methods has an advantage of reversing plasticity induced by drugs of abuse by targeting the neurocircuits that maintain addictive behaviors [158]. For instance, nearly 50% of patients become abstinent from cigarettes after treatment with rTMS and concomitant nicotine replacement therapy [159]. Future studies will define optimal augmentation strategies, in order to determine possible rationales to combine neuromodulation and pharmacological interventions. Promising strategies seem to be represented by the simultaneous interaction with glutamate and GABA neurotransmissions [160, 161].
At present, the gap between the knowledge we have about the neurobiology of addiction and the translation in effective treatments remains substantial. Bridging this gap could help increase the efficacy of treatments for those patients who suffer from the serious consequences of these disorders, as well as for their families. The implementation of neuromodulation techniques offers a chance to remodel dysfunctional neural circuits. Moreover, combining these actions with synergistic pharmacological modulation could determine more pronounced and long-lasting effects. Furthermore, also behavioral interventions (i.e., motivational interviewing (MI); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT); contingency management (CM)) can be used in combination to NIBS. Given that neuromodulation can improve cognitive control/functioning, it may (in part) diminish the risk for relapse by strengthening cognitive control [162, 163], favoring the psychotherapeutic and rehabilitation process in absence of craving perturbations [164].
6 Conclusions
Building on data from major depression and OCD (for which TMS is currently FDA approved), we are now beginning to build a foundation of knowledge regarding rTMS utility as a tool to change smoking, drinking, and cocaine use behavior.
At the moment, the best level of effectiveness of rTMS is in the treatment of nicotine and cocaine/stimulant-use disorders. The effects of rTMS sessions on drug craving and consumption provide evidence and support for further TMS studies in the field of addiction research. It is important to note that none of these studies demonstrated complete abstinence from substance use and few studies [73, 83] evaluated craving in real-life scenarios. The outcome observed is still far from being considered fully satisfactory. Variability in cortical excitability may also be linked to genetic characteristics, in the same way that responses to medications can be influenced by genetic variability [165]. A research domain criteria approach able to identify the specific endophenotype that could be better benefit from rTMS is going to be the goal of NIBS in the next years [166, 167].
Future research should identify potential parameters (i.e., duration, number of stimulation treatments, stimulation frequency, intensity, brain region of target, and proximity between treatments) of stimulation in rTMS studies for the most effective and safe treatment of drug addiction. Optimal stimulation parameters are still far from being defined. Rigorous preclinical TMS-dosing studies in various addiction models are needed to comprehensively evaluate the full parameter space of dosing variables.
The data presented in this chapter demonstrate that whereas most of the efforts for rTMS in addiction have been focused on increasing activity in the DLPFC, decreasing activity in the MPFC and ventral striatum may also be a feasible and fruitful target to consider [47]. It seems plausible that either increasing neural firing in the executive control circuit (perhaps via 10-Hz TMS in the DLPFC) or decreasing firing in the limbic circuit in the presence of cues (perhaps via cTBS TMS in the MPFC) may be valuable strategies for decreasing vulnerability to drug-related cues among patients. Convincing evidence also leads to the idea of the insula being a promising brain region to target for addiction with dTMS stimulation [168].
Promising therapeutic development is represented by the use of multiple rTMS sessions per day, as shown in depression studies for accelerated rTMS protocols [134], by the use of appropriate add-on pharmacotherapy [160, 161], and by the concomitant use of other NIBS (tDCS) in the long term, also in terms of cost effectiveness [160, 161].
Future studies should focus on the personalization of the rTMS treatment, as well as on the optimization of stimulation protocols.
References
Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:760–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8.
Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:217–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.110.
Nestler EJ. Is there a common molecular pathway for addiction? Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1445–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1578.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1993;18:247–91.
Nestler EJ. Molecular neurobiology of addiction. Am J Addict. 2001;10(3):201–17.
Garbusow M, Schad DJ, Sebold M, Friedel E, Bernhardt N, Koch SP, Steinacher B, Kathmann N, Geurts DE, Sommer C, Müller DK, Nebe S, Paul S, Wittchen HU, Zimmermann US, Walter H, Smolka MN, Sterzer P, Rapp MA, Huys QJ, Schlagenhauf F, Heinz A. Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer effects in the nucleus accumbens relate to relapse in alcohol dependence. Addict Biol. 2016;21(3):719–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12243
Kourrich S, Calu DJ, Bonci A. Intrinsic plasticity: an emerging player in addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(3):173–84.
Di Ciano P, Everitt BJ. Contribution of the ventral tegmental area to cocaine-seeking maintained by a drug-paired conditioned stimulus in rats. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;19(6):1661–7.
Kiyatkin EA, Stein EA. Conditioned changes in nucleus accumbens dopamine signal established by intravenous cocaine in rats. Neurosci Lett. 1996;211(2):73–6.
Phillips PE, Stuber GD, Heien ML, Wightman RM, Carelli RM. Subsecond dopamine release promotes cocaine seeking. Nature. 2003;422(6932):614-8. Erratum in: Nature. 2003;423(6938):461.
Vanderschuren LJ, Di Ciano P, Everitt BJ. Involvement of the dorsal striatum in cue-controlled cocaine seeking. J Neurosci. 2005;25(38):8665–70.
Weiss F, Maldonado-Vlaar CS, Parsons LH, Kerr TM, Smith DL, Ben-Shahar O. Control of cocaine-seeking behavior by drug-associated stimuli in rats: effects on recovery of extinguished operant-responding and extracellular dopamine levels in amygdala and nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(8):4321–6.
Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1481–9.
Belin D, Belin-Rauscent A, Murray JE, Everitt BJ. Addiction: failure of control over maladaptive incentive habits. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(4):564-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.025.
Volkow ND, Koob G, Baler R. Biomarkers in substance use disorders. ACS Chem Nerosci. 2015;6:522–5. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00067.
Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:652.
McClure SM, Bickel WK. A dual-systems perspective on addiction: contributions from neuroimaging and cognitive training. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1327:62–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12561.
Hayashi T, Ko JH, Strafella AP, Dagher A. Dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex interactions during self-control of cigarette craving. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:4422–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212185110.
Dunlop K, Hanlon CA, Downar J. Noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for addiction and major depression. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1394:31–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12985.
Eldreth DA, Matochik JA, Cadet JL, Bolla KI. Abnormal brain activity in prefrontal brain regions in abstinent marijuana users. Neuroimage. 2004;23:914–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.032.
Salo R, Ursu S, Buonocore MH, Leamon MH, Carter C. Impaired prefrontal cortical function and disrupted adaptive cognitive control in methamphetamine abusers: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65:706–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.026.
Koob GF, Le Moal M, Se V. Neurobiological mechanisms for opponent motivational processes in addiction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1507):3113–23. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0094.
Kwako LE, Momenan R, Litten RZ, Koob GF, Goldman D. Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment: A Neuroscience-Based Framework for Addictive Disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80(3):179–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.10.024.
Spagnolo PA, Gómez Pérez LJ, Terraneo A, Gallimberti L, Bonci A. Neural correlates of cue- and stress-induced craving in gambling disorders: implications for transcranial magnetic stimulation interventions. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50(3):2370–2383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14313.
Yücel M, Oldenhof E, Ahmed SH, Belin D, Billieux J, Bowden-Jones H, Carter A, Chamberlain SR, Clark L, Connor J, Daglish M, Dom G, Dannon P, Duka T, Fernandez-Serrano MJ, Field M, Franken I, Goldstein RZ, Gonzalez R, Goudriaan AE, Grant JE, Gullo MJ, Hester R, Hodgins DC, Le Foll B, Lee RSC, Lingford- Hughes A, Lorenzetti V, Moeller SJ, Munafò MR, Odlaug B, Potenza MN, Segrave R, Sjoerds Z, Solowij N, van den Brink W, van Holst RJ, Voon V, Wiers R, Fontenelle LF, Verdejo-Garcia A. A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for addiction: an international Delphi consensus study. Addiction. 2019;114(6):1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14424.
Achab S, Khazaal Y. Psychopharmacological treatment in pathological gambling: a critical review. Curr Pharm Des. 2011;17:1389–95. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161211796150774.
Bolt DM, Piper ME, Theobald WE, Baker TB. Why two smoking cessation agents work better than one: role of craving suppression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026366.
Mariani JJ, Levin FR. Psychostimulant treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2012;35:425–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.012.
Muller CA, Schafer M, Banas R, Heimann HM, Volkmar K, Forg A, Heinz A, Hein J. A combination of levetiracetam and tiapride for outpatient alcohol detoxification: a case series. J Addict Med. 2011;5:153–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181ec5f81.
McHugh RK, Hearon BA, Otto MW. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for substance use disorders. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2010;33:511–25.
Chen AC, Oathes DJ, Chang C, Bradley T, Zhou ZW, Williams LM, Glover GH, Deisseroth K, Etkin A. Causal interactions between fronto-parietal central executive and default-mode networks in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(49):19944–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1311772110.
Jasinska AJ, Chen BT, Bonci A, Stein EA. Dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) circuitry in rodent models of cocaine use: implications for drug addiction therapies. Addict Biol. 2015;20:215–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12132.
Balleine BW, Dickinson A. Goal-directed instrumental action: contingency and incentive learning and their cortical substrates. Neuropharmacology. 1998;37:407–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3908(98)00033-1.
Gass JT, Chandler LJ. The plasticity of extinction: contribution of the prefrontal cortex in treating addiction through inhibitory learning. Front Psych. 2013;4:46. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00046.
Papaleo F, Erickson L, Liu G, Chen J, Weinberger DR. Effects of sex and COMT genotype on environmentally modulated cognitive control in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:20160–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214397109.
Rorie AE, Newsome WT. A general mechanism for decision-making in the human brain? Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9:41–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.007.
Knoch D, Gianotti LRR, Pascual-Leone A, Treyer V, Regard M, Hohmann M, Brugger P. Disruption of right prefrontal cortex by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces risk-taking behavior. J Neurosci. 2006;26:6469–72. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0804-06.2006.
Haber SN, Knutson B. The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:4–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.129.
Seeley WW, Menon V, Schatzberg AF, Keller J, Glover GH, Kenna H, et al. Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2349–56.
Raichle ME. The brain’s default mode network. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2015;38:433–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030.
Spronk DB, van Wel JHP, Ramaekers JG, Verkes RJ. Characterizing the cognitive effects of cocaine: a comprehensive review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:1838–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.003.
Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. The Iowa gambling task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9:154–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.002.
Bickel WK, Miller ML, Yi R, Kowal BP, Lindquist DM, Pitcock JA. Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;90(Suppl 1):S85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.016.
Childress AR, Mozley PD, McElgin W, Fitzgerald J, Reivich M, O’Brien CP. Limbic activation during cue-induced cocaine craving. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:11–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.156.1.11.
Hu Y, Salmeron BJ, Gu H, Stein EA, Yang Y. Impaired functional connectivity within and between frontostriatal circuits and its association with compulsive drug use and trait impulsivity in cocaine addiction. JAMA Psychiat. 2015;72:584–92. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1.
Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT. Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:363–71. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1511480.
Hanlon CA, Dowdle LT, Henderson JS. Modulating neural circuits with transcranial magnetic stimulation: implications for addiction treatment development. Pharmacol Rev. 2018;70:661–83. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.116.013649.
Strafella AP, Paus T, Barrett J, Dagher A. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus. J Neurosci. 2001;21:RC157.
Cho SS, Strafella AP. rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates dopamine release in the ipsilateral anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex. PLoS One. 2009;4:e6725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006725.
Addolorato G, Antonelli M, Cocciolillo F, Vassallo GA, Tarli C, Sestito L, Mirijello A, Ferrulli A, Pizzuto DA, Camardese G, Miceli A, Diana M, Giordano A, Gasbarrini A, Di Giuda D. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in alcohol use disorder patients: effects on dopamine transporter availability and alcohol intake. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2017;27:450–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2017.03.008.
Vanderschuren LJ, Kalivas PW. Alterations in dopaminergic and glutamatergic transmission in the induction and expression of behavioral sensitization: a critical review of preclinical studies. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000;151:99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130000493.
Kalivas PW, O’Brien C. Drug addiction as a pathology of staged neuroplasticity. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:166–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301564.
Diana M. The dopamine hypothesis of drug addiction and its potential therapeutic value. Front Psych. 2011;2:64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2011.00064.
Gersner R, Kravetz E, Feil J, Pell G, Zangen A. Long-term effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on markers for neuroplasticity: differential outcomes in anesthetized and awake animals. J Neurosci. 2011;31:7521–6. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6751-10.2011.
Cirillo G, Di Pino G, Capone F, Ranieri F, Florio L, Todisco V, Tedeschi G, Funke K, Di Lazzaro V. Neurobiological after-effects of non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2017;10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.11.009.
Diana M, Raij T, Melis M, Nummenmaa A, Leggio L, Bonci A. Rehabilitating the addicted brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18:685–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.113.
Argilli E, Sibley DR, Malenka RC, England PM, Bonci A. Mechanism and time course of cocaine-induced long-term potentiation in the ventral tegmental area. J Neurosci. 2008;28:9092–100. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1001-08.2008.
McDonnell MN, Orekhov Y, Ziemann U. The role of GABA(B) receptors in intracortical inhibition in the human motor cortex. Exp Brain Res. 2006;173(1):86–93.
Daskalakis ZJ, Moller B, Christensen BK, Fitzgerald PB, Gunraj C, Chen R. The effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cortical inhibition in healthy human subjects. Exp Brain Res. 2006;174:403–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0472-0.
Di Nicola M, Martinotti G, Tedeschi D, Frustaci A, Mazza M, Sarchiapone M, Pozzi G, Bria P, Janiri L. Pregabalin in outpatient detoxification of subjects with mild-to-moderate alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2010;25:268–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.1098.
Martinotti G, Di Nicola M, Romanelli R, Andreoli S, Pozzi G, Moroni N, Janiri L. High and low dosage oxcarbazepine versus naltrexone for the prevention of relapse in alcohol-dependent patients. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2007;22:149–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.833.
Martinotti G, Di Nicola M, Tedeschi D, Mazza M, Janiri L, Bria P. Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in alcohol dependence. Adv Ther. 2008;25(6):608–18.
Spagnolo PA, Goldman D. Neuromodulation interventions for addictive disorders: challenges, promise, and roadmap for future research. Brain. 2017;140:1183–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww284.
Zhang X, Mei Y, Liu C, Yu S. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on the expression of c-Fos and brain-derived neurotrophic factor of the cerebral cortex in rats with cerebral infarct. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2007;27:415–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-007-0416-3.
Ghitza UE, Zhai H, Wu P, Airavaara M, Shaham Y, Lu L. Role of BDNF and GDNF in drug reward and relapse: a review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;35:157–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.009.
Ricci V, Martinotti G, Gelfo F, Tonioni F, Caltagirone C, Bria P, Angelucci F. Chronic ketamine use increases serum levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011;215(1):143–8.
Zhang JJQ, Fong KNK, Ouyang R-G, Siu AMH, Kranz GS. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on craving and substance consumption in patients with substance dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2019;114(12):2137–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14753.
Bellamoli E, Manganotti P, Schwartz RP, Rimondo C, Gomma M, Serpelloni G. rTMS in the treatment of drug addiction: an update about human studies. Behav Neurol. 2014;2014:815215. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/815215.
Roth Y, Zangen A, Hallett M. A coil design for transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain regions. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19:361–70.
Hanlon CA, Dowdle LT, Austelle CW, DeVries W, Mithoefer O, Badran BW, George MS. What goes up, can come down: novel brain stimulation paradigms may attenuate craving and craving-related neural circuitry in substance dependent individuals. Brain Res. 2015;1628:199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.053.
Hanlon CA, Dowdle LT, Correia B, Mithoefer O, Kearney-Ramos T, Lench D, Griffin M, Anton RF, George MS. Left frontal pole theta burst stimulation decreases orbitofrontal and insula activity in cocaine users and alcohol users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;178:310–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.039.
Johann M, Wiegand R, Kharraz A, Bobbe G, Sommer G, Hajak G, Wodarz N, Eichhammer P. Repetitiv transcranial magnetic stimulation in nicotine dependence. Psychiatr Prax. 2003;30:129–31. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-39733.
Eichhammer P, Johann M, Kharraz A, Binder H, Pittrow D, Wodarz N, Hajak G. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation decreases cigarette smoking. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:951–3. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v64n0815.
Barr MS, Fitzgerald PB, Farzan F, George TO, Daskalakis J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation to understand the pathophysiology and treatment of substance use disorders. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008;1(3):328–39.
Amiaz R, Levy D, Vainiger D, Grunhaus L, Zangen A. Repeated high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cigarette craving and consumption. Addiction. 2009;104:653–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02448.x.
Wing VC, Bacher I, Wu BS, Daskalakis ZJ, George TP. High frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces tobacco craving in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2012;139(1-3):264–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2012.03.006.
Rose JE, McClernon FJ, Froeliger B, Behm FM, Preud’homme X, Krystal AD. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the superior frontal gyrus modulates craving for cigarettes. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;70:794–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.05.031.
Dinur-Klein L, Dannon P, Hadar A, Rosenberg O, Roth Y, Kotler M, Zangen A. Smoking cessation induced by deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal and insular cortices: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2014;76:742–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.05.020.
Naqvi NH, Gaznick N, Tranel D, Bechara A. The insula: a critical neural substrate for craving and drug seeking under conflict and risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1316:53-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12415.
Brainin M, Barnes M, Baron J-C, Gilhus NE, Hughes R, Selmaj K, Waldemar G. Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces—revised recommendations 2004. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11:577–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2004.00867.x.
Soyka M, Müller CA. Pharmacotherapy of alcoholism—an update on approved and off-label medications. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18(12):1187–99.
Mishra BR, Nizamie SH, Das B, Praharaj SK. Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in alcohol dependence: a sham-controlled study. Addiction. 2010;105:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02777.x.
Hoppner J, Broese T, Wendler L, Berger C, Thome J. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of alcohol dependence. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011;12(Suppl 1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.598383.
Herremans SC, Baeken C, Vanderbruggen N, Vanderhasselt MA, Zeeuws D, Santermans L, De Raedt R. No influence of one right-sided prefrontal HF-rTMS session on alcohol craving in recently detoxified alcohol-dependent patients: results of a naturalistic study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;120:209–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.07.021.
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Kovacs S, Sunaert S, Dom G. Transient alcohol craving suppression by rTMS of dorsal anterior cingulate: an fMRI and LORETA EEG study. Neurosci Lett. 2011;496:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.074.
Herremans SC, Baeken C. The current perspective of neuromodulation techniques in the treatment of alcohol addiction: a systematic review. Psychiatr Danub. 2012;24(Suppl 1):S14–20.
Reitox National Drug Information Centre-Italy—EMCDDA. National Report to EMCDDA 2013—Italy. 2014.
Sinha R. New findings on biological factors predicting addiction relapse vulnerability. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2011;13(5):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0224-0.
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang G-J, Swanson JM. Dopamine in drug abuse and addiction: results from imaging studies and treatment implications. Mol Psychiatry. 2004;9:557–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001507.
Matochik JA, London ED, Eldreth DA, Cadet J-L, Bolla KI. Frontal cortical tissue composition in abstinent cocaine abusers: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage. 2003;19:1095–102.
Moreno-López L, Stamatakis EA, Fernández-Serrano MJ, Gómez-Río M, Rodríguez-Fernández A, Pérez-García M, Verdejo-García A. Neural correlates of the severity of cocaine, heroin, alcohol, MDMA and cannabis use in polysubstance abusers: a resting-PET brain metabolism study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039830.
Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1642–52. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.10.1642.
Kaufman JN, Ross TJ, Stein EA, Garavan H. Cingulate hypoactivity in cocaine users during a GO-NOGO task as revealed by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 2003;23:7839–43.
Ke Y, Streeter CC, Nassar LE, Sarid-Segal O, Hennen J, Yurgelun-Todd DA, Awad LA, Rendall MJ, Gruber SA, Nason A, Mudrick MJ, Blank SR, Meyer AA, Knapp C, Ciraulo DA, Renshaw PF. Frontal lobe GABA levels in cocaine dependence: a two-dimensional, J-resolved magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Psychiatry Res. 2004;130:283–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2003.12.001.
Licata SC, Renshaw PF. Neurochemistry of drug action: insights from proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and their relevance to addiction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1187:148–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05143.x.
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang G-J. The addicted human brain: insights from imaging studies. J Clin Invest. 2003;111:1444–51. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI18533.
Camprodon JA, Martínez-Raga J, Alonso-Alonso M, Shih M-C, Pascual-Leone A. One session of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the right prefrontal cortex transiently reduces cocaine craving. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;86:91–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.06.002.
Politi E, Fauci E, Santoro A, Smeraldi E. Daily sessions of transcranial magnetic stimulation to the left prefrontal cortex gradually reduce cocaine craving. Am J Addict. 2008;17(4):345–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550490802139283.
Martinez D, Urban N, Grassetti A, Chang D, Hu MC, Zangen A, Levin FR, Foltin R, Nunes EV. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of medial prefrontal and cingulate cortices reduces cocaine self-administration: a pilot study. Front Psych. 2018;9:10–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00080.
Pettorruso M, Spagnolo PA, Leggio L, Janiri L, Di Giannantonio M, Gallimberti L, Bonci A, Martinotti G. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may improve symptoms of anhedonia in individuals with cocaine use disorder: a pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:1195–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.06.001.
Rapinesi C, Del Casale A, Di Pietro S, Ferri VR, Piacentino D, Sani G, Raccah RN, Zangen A, Ferracuti S, Vento AE, Angeletti G, Brugnoli R, Kotzalidis GD, Girardi P. Add-on high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) to bilateral prefrontal cortex reduces cocaine craving in patients with cocaine use disorder. Neurosci Lett. 2016;629:43–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.049.
Terraneo A, Leggio L, Saladini M, Ermani M, Bonci A, Gallimberti L. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cocaine use: a pilot study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;26(1):37–44.
Sanna A, Fattore L, Badas P, Corona G, Cocco V, Diana M. Intermittent Theta burst stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in cocaine use disorder: a pilot study. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:765.
Pettorruso M, Martinotti G, Santacroce R, Montemitro C, Fanella F, Di Giannantonio M. rTMS reduces psychopathological burden and cocaine consumption in treatment-seeking subjects with cocaine use disorder: an open label, feasibility study. Front Psych. 2019b;10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00621.
Corkery JM, Schifano F, Martinotti G. Pharmacology influencing practice, policy and the law. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14183.
Schifano F, Leoni M, Martinotti G, Rawaf S, Rovetto F. Importance of cyberspace for the assessment of the drug abuse market: preliminary results from the Psychonaut 2002 project. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2003;6(4):405–10.
Courtney KE, Ray LA. Methamphetamine: an update on epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical phenomenology, and treatment literature. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;143:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.08.003.
Du X, Yu C, Hu Z-Y, Zhou D-S. Commentary: methamphetamine abuse impairs motor cortical plasticity and function. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00562.
Liu T, Li Y, Shen Y, Liu X, Yuan T. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry Gender does not matter: add-on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for female methamphetamine dependents. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2019;92:70–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.12.018.
Su H, Zhong N, Gan H, Wang J, Han H, Chen T, Li X, Ruan X, Zhu Y, Jiang H, Zhao M. High frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for methamphetamine use disorders: a randomised clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;175:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.01.037.
Lin J, Liu X, Li H, Yu L, Shen M, Lou Y, Xie S, Chen J, Zhang R, Yuan T-F. Chronic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on sleeping quality and mood status in drug dependent male inpatients during abstinence. Sleep Med. 2019;58:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2019.01.052.
Liang Q, Lin J, Yang J, Li X, Chen Y, Meng X, Yuan J. Intervention effect of repetitive TMS on behavioral adjustment after error commission in long-term methamphetamine addicts: evidence from a two-choice oddball task. Neurosci Bull. 2018;34:449–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-018-0205-y.
Li X, Malcolm RJ, Huebner K. Low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex transiently increases cue-induced craving for methamphetamine: a preliminary study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;133:641–6.
Liu Q, Shen Y, Cao X, Li Y. Brief report: either at left or right, both high and low frequency rTMS of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases Cue induced craving for methamphetamine. Am J Addict. 2017;26(8):776–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12638.
Verhamme KMC, Bohnen AM. Are we facing an opioid crisis in Europe? Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(10):e483–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30156-2.
Kuhn J, Moller M, Treppmann JF, Bartsch C, Lenartz D, Gruendler TOJ, Maarouf M, Brosig A, Barnikol UB, Klosterkotter J, Sturm V. Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens and its usefulness in severe opioid addiction. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(2):145–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2012.196.
Valencia-Alfonso C-E, Luigjes J, Smolders R, Cohen MX, Levar N, Mazaheri A, van den Munckhof P, Schuurman PR, van den Brink W, Denys D. Effective deep brain stimulation in heroin addiction: a case report with complementary intracranial electroencephalogram. Biol Psychiatry. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.013.
Zhou H, Xu J, Jiang J. Deep brain stimulation of nucleus accumbens on heroin-seeking behaviors: a case report. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(11):e41–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.02.012.
Kroon E, Kuhns L, Hoch E, Cousijn J. Heavy cannabis use, dependence and the brain: a clinical perspective. Addiction. 2019;115:559–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14776.
Sahlem GL, Baker NL, George MS, Malcolm RJ, McRae-Clark AL. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) administration to heavy cannabis users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2017.1355920.
Spagnolo PA, Gómez Pérez LJ, Terraneo A, Gallimberti L, Bonci A. Neural correlates of cue- and stress-induced craving in gambling disorders: implications for transcranial magnetic stimulation interventions. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50(3):2370–83.
Goudriaan AE, Yucel M, van Holst RJ. Getting a grip on problem gambling: what can neuroscience tell us? Front Behav Neurosci. 2014;8:141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00141.
Moccia L, Pettorruso M, De Crescenzo F, De Risio L, di Nuzzo L, Martinotti G, Bifone A, Janiri L, Di Nicola M. Neural correlates of cognitive control in gambling disorder: a systematic review of fMRI studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;78:104–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.025.
van Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE. Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;34:87–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.007.
Ekhtiari H, Tavakoli H, Addolorato G, Baeken C, Bonci A, Campanella S, Castelo-Branco L, Challet-Bouju G, Clark VP, Claus E, Dannon PN, Del Felice A, den Uyl T, Diana M, di Giannantonio M, Fedota JR, Fitzgerald P, Gallimberti L, Grall-Bronnec M, Herremans SC, Herrmann MJ, Jamil A, Khedr E, Kouimtsidis C, Kozak K, Krupitsky E, Lamm C, Lechner WV, Madeo G, Malmir N, Martinotti G, McDonald WM, Montemitro C, Nakamura-Palacios EM, Nasehi M, Noël X, Nosratabadi M, Paulus M, Pettorruso M, Pradhan B, Praharaj SK, Rafferty H, Sahlem G, Salmeron BJ, Sauvaget A, Schluter RS, Sergiou C, Shahbabaie A, Sheffer C, Spagnolo PA, Steele VR, Yuan T, van Dongen JDM, Van Waes V, Venkatasubramanian G, Verdejo-García A, Verveer I, Welsh JW, Wesley MJ, Witkiewitz K, Yavari F, Zarrindast M-R, Zawertailo L, Zhang X, Cha Y-H, George TP, Frohlich F, Goudriaan AE, Fecteau S, Daughters SB, Stein EA, Fregni F, Nitsche MA, Zangen A, Bikson M, Hanlon CA. Transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation (tES and TMS) for addiction medicine: a consensus paper on the present state of the science and the road ahead. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;104:118–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.007.
Zack M, Cho SS, Parlee J, Jacobs M, Li C, Boileau I, Strafella A. Effects of high frequency repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation and continuous theta burst stimulation on gambling reinforcement, delay discounting, and Stroop interference in men with pathological gambling. Brain Stimul. 2016;9:867–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.003.
Gay A, Boutet C, Sigaud T, Kamgoue A, Sevos J, Brunelin J, Massoubre C. A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal cortex reduces cue-induced craving in patients with gambling disorder. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;41:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.11.001.
Sauvaget A, Bulteau S, Guilleux A, Leboucher J, Pichot A, Valriviere P, Vanelle J-M, Sebille-Rivain V, Grall-Bronnec M. Both active and sham low-frequency rTMS single sessions over the right DLPFC decrease cue-induced cravings among pathological gamblers seeking treatment: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled crossover trial. J Behav Addict. 2018;7:126–36. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.14.
Pettorruso M, Di Giuda D, Martinotti G, Cocciolillo F, De Risio L, Montemitro C, Camardese G, Di Nicola M, Janiri L, di Giannantonio M. Dopaminergic and clinical correlates of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in gambling addiction: a SPECT case study. Addict Behav. 2019a;93:246–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.02.013.
Pettorruso M, Martinotti G, Montemitro C, De Risio L, Spagnolo PA, Gallimberti L, Fanella F, Bonci A, Di Giannantonio M; Brainswitch Study Group. Multiple Sessions of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Potential Treatment for Gambling Addiction: A 3-Month, Feasibility Study. Eur Addict Res. 2020;26(1):52-56. https://doi.org/10.1159/000504169.
Cardullo S, Gomez Perez LJ, Marconi L, Terraneo A, Gallimberti L, Bonci A, Madeo G. Clinical improvements in comorbid gambling/cocaine use disorder (GD/CUD) patients undergoing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). J Clin Med. 2019;8:768. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8060768.
Rossi S, De Capua A, Tavanti M, Calossi S, Polizzotto NR, Mantovani A, Falzarano V, Bossini L, Passero S, Bartalini S, Ulivelli M. Dysfunctions of cortical excitability in drug-naive posttraumatic stress disorder patients. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;66:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.03.008.
Schulze L, Feffer K, Lozano C, Giacobbe P, Daskalakis ZJ, Blumberger DM, Downar J. Number of pulses or number of sessions? An open-label study of trajectories of improvement for once-vs twice-daily dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depression. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:327–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.002.
Baeken C, Vanderhasselt M-A, Remue J, Herremans S, Vanderbruggen N, Zeeuws D, Santermans L, De Raedt R. Intensive HF-rTMS treatment in refractory medication-resistant unipolar depressed patients. J Affect Disord. 2013;151:625–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.008.
Balconi M, Finocchiaro R, Canavesio Y. Reward-system effect (BAS rating), left hemispheric “unbalance” (alpha band oscillations) and decisional impairments in drug addiction. Addict Behav. 2014;39:1026–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.007.
Rapinesi C, Bersani FS, Kotzalidis GD, Imperatori C, Del Casale A, Di Pietro S, Ferri VR, Serata D, Raccah RN, Zangen A, Angeletti G, Girardi P. Maintenance deep transcranial magnetic stimulation sessions are associated with reduced depressive relapses in patients with unipolar or bipolar depression. Front Neurol. 2015;6:16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00016.
Senova S, Cotovio G, Pascual-Leone A, Oliveira-Maia AJ. Durability of antidepressant response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Stimul. 2019;12:119–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.10.001.
Dieler AC, Dresler T, Joachim K, Deckert J, Herrmann MJ, Fallgatter AJ. Can intermittent theta burst stimulation as add-on to psychotherapy improve nicotine abstinence? Results from a pilot study. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20:248–53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357941.
Goldsworthy MR, Pitcher JB, Ridding MC. Neuroplastic modulation of inhibitory motor cortical networks by spaced theta burst stimulation protocols. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:340–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.06.005.
Monte-Silva K, Kuo M-F, Hessenthaler S, Fresnoza S, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:424–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011.
Thickbroom GW. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and synaptic plasticity: experimental framework and human models. Exp Brain Res. 2007;180:583–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-0991-3.
Tse NY, Goldsworthy MR, Ridding MC, Coxon JP, Fitzgerald PB, Fornito A, Rogasch NC. The effect of stimulation interval on plasticity following repeated blocks of intermittent theta burst stimulation. Sci Rep. 2018;8:8526. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26791-w.
Modirrousta M, Meek BP, Wikstrom SL. Efficacy of twice-daily vs once-daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a retrospective study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:309–16. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S151841.
Trojak B, Sauvaget A, Fecteau S, Lalanne L, Chauvet-Gelinier J-C, Koch S, Bulteau S, Zullino D, Achab S. Outcome of non-invasive brain stimulation in substance use disorders: a review of randomized sham-controlled clinical trials. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;29:105–18. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16080147.
Duecker F, Sack AT. Rethinking the role of sham TMS. Front Psychol. 2015;6:210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00210.
Cunningham AD, Jacqueline Cavendish J, Sankarasubramanian V, Potter-Baker KA, Machado AJ, Plow EB. The influence of sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on commonly collected TMS metrics in patients with chronic stroke. Brain Stimul. 2017;10(4):e24–5.
Brunoni AR, Sampaio-Junior B, Moffa AH, Aparicio LV, Gordon P, Klein I, Rios RM, Razza LB, Loo C, Padberg F, Valiengo L. Noninvasive brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders: a primer. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2019;41:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2017-0018.
Mansur CG, Myczkowki ML, de Barros Cabral S, Sartorelli MC, Bellini BB, Dias AM, Bernik MA, Marcolin MA. Placebo effect after prefrontal magnetic stimulation in the treatment of resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14(10):1389–97 . Epub 2011 Apr 18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1461145711000575.
Ersche KD, Turton AJ, Croudace T, Stochl J. Who do you think is in control in addiction? A pilot study on drug-related locus of control beliefs. Addict Disord Their Treat. 2012;11:173–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADT.0b013e31823da151.
Opitz A, Legon W, Mueller J, Barbour A, Paulus W, Tyler WJ. Is sham cTBS real cTBS? The effect on EEG dynamics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;8:1043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01043.
Beveridge TJR, Smith HR, Nader MA, Porrino LJ. Abstinence from chronic cocaine self-administration alters striatal dopamine systems in rhesus monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34:1162–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2008.135.
Coles AS, Kozak K, George TP. A review of brain stimulation methods to treat substance use disorders. Am J Addict. 2018;27(2):71-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12674.
Wing VC, Barr MS, Wass CE, Lipsman N, Lozano AM, Daskalakis ZJ, George TP. Brain stimulation methods to treat tobacco addiction. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:221–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.06.008.
Ceccanti M, Inghilleri M, Attilia ML, Raccah R, Fiore M, Zangen A, Ceccanti M. Deep TMS on alcoholics: effects on cortisolemia and dopamine pathway modulation. A pilot study. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2015;93:283–90. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjpp-2014-0188.
Lucatch AM, Lowe DJE, Clark RC, Kozak K, George TP. Neurobiological determinants of tobacco smoking in schizophrenia. Front Psych. 2018;9:672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00672.
Martinotti G, Santacroce R, Pettorruso M, Montemitro C, Spano MC, Lorusso M, di Giannantonio M, Lerner AG. Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder: Etiology, Clinical Features, and Therapeutic Perspectives. Brain Sci. 2018 Mar 16;8(3). pii: E47. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8030047.
Spagnolo PA, Montemitro C, Pettorruso M, Martinotti G, Di Giannantonio M. Better Together? Coupling Pharmacotherapies and Cognitive Interventions With Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Addictive Disorders. Front Neurosci. 2020 Jan 10;13:1385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01385.
Salling MC, Martinez D. Brain stimulation in addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41:2798–809. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.80.
Trojak B, Meille V, Achab S, Lalanne L, Poquet H, Ponavoy E, Blaise E, Bonin B, Chauvet-Gelinier J-C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:1168–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.06.004.
Martinotti G, Lupi M, Montemitro C, Miuli A, Di Natale C, Spano MC, Mancini V, Lorusso M, Stigliano G, Tambelli A, Di Carlo F, Di Caprio L, Fraticelli S, Chillemi E, Pettorruso M, Sepede G, di Giannantonio M. Transcranial direct current stimulation reduces craving in substance use disorders: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J ECT. 2019a;35(3):207–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000580.
Martinotti G, Montemitro C, Pettorruso M, Viceconte D, Alessi MC, Di Carlo F, Lucidi L, Picutti E, Santacroce R, Di Giannantonio M. Augmenting pharmacotherapy with neuromodulation techniques for the treatment of bipolar disorder: a focus on the effects of mood stabilizers on cortical excitability. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2019b:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14656566.2019.1622092.
Jansen JM, Daams JG, Koeter MWJ, Veltman DJ, van den Brink W, Goudriaan AE. Effects of non-invasive neurostimulation on craving: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:2472–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.009.
Schluter RS, Daams JG, van Holst RJ, Goudriaan AE. Effects of non-invasive neuromodulation on executive and other cognitive functions in addictive disorders: a systematic review. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00642.
Pettorruso M, di Giannantonio M, De Risio L, Martinotti G, Koob GF. A light in the darkness: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to treat the hedonic dysregulation of addiction. J Addict Med. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000575.
Sturgess JE, George TP, Kennedy JL, Heinz A, Muller DJ. Pharmacogenetics of alcohol, nicotine and drug addiction treatments. Addict Biol. 2011;16:357–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2010.00287.x.
Spano MC, Lorusso M, Pettorruso M, Zoratto F, Di Giuda D, Martinotti G, di Giannantonio M. Anhedonia across borders: Transdiagnostic relevance of reward dysfunction for noninvasive brain stimulation endophenotypes. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2019 Nov;25(11):1229–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13230.
Pettorruso M, Martinotti G, Montemitro C, Miuli A, Spano MC, Lorusso M, Vellante F, di Giannantonio M. Craving and Other Transdiagnostic Dimensions in Addiction: Toward Personalized Neuromodulation Treatments. J ECT. 2020;6. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000643.
Ibrahim C, Rubin-Kahana DS, Pushparaj A, Musiol M, Blumberger DM, Daskalakis ZJ, Zangen A, Le Foll B. The insula: a brain stimulation target for the treatment of addiction. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00720.
Conflict of Interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martinotti, G. et al. (2020). Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Addiction. In: Dell'Osso, B., Di Lorenzo, G. (eds) Non Invasive Brain Stimulation in Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43356-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43356-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43355-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43356-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)