We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of TMS on cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), AD-related dementias, and nondementia conditions with comorbid cognitive impairment.

Systematic review, Meta-Analysis

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2000, to February 9, 2023.

RCTs, open-label, and case series studies reporting cognitive outcomes following TMS intervention were included.

Cognitive and safety outcomes were measured. Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs and MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) criteria were used to evaluate study quality. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326423).

The systematic review included 143 studies (n = 5,800 participants) worldwide, encompassing 94 RCTs, 43 open-label prospective, 3 open-label retrospective, and 3 case series. The meta-analysis included 25 RCTs in MCI and AD. Collectively, these studies provide evidence of improved global and specific cognitive measures with TMS across diagnostic groups. Only 2 studies (among 143) reported 4 adverse events of seizures: 3 were deemed TMS unrelated and another resolved with coil repositioning. Meta-analysis showed large effect sizes on global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (SMD = 0.80 [0.26, 1.33], p = 0.003), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SMD = 0.85 [0.26, 1.44], p = 0.005), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (SMD = −0.96 [−1.32, −0.60], p < 0.001)) in MCI and AD, although with significant heterogeneity.

The reviewed studies provide favorable evidence of improved cognition with TMS across all groups with cognitive impairment. TMS was safe and well tolerated with infrequent serious adverse events.

Therapeutics targeting frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are entering clinical trials. There are challenges to conducting these studies, including the relative rarity of the disease. Remote assessment tools could increase access to clinical research and pave the way for decentralized clinical trials. We developed the ALLFTD Mobile App, a smartphone application that includes assessments of cognition, speech/language, and motor functioning. The objectives were to determine the feasibility and acceptability of collecting remote smartphone data in a multicenter FTD research study and evaluate the reliability and validity of the smartphone cognitive and motor measures.

A diagnostically mixed sample of 207 participants with FTD or from familial FTD kindreds (CDR®+NACC-FTLD=0 [n=91]; CDR®+NACC-FTLD=0.5 [n=39]; CDR®+NACC-FTLD>1 [n=39]; unknown [n=38]) were asked to remotely complete a battery of tests on their smartphones three times over two weeks. Measures included five executive functioning (EF) tests, an adaptive memory test, and participant experience surveys. A subset completed smartphone tests of balance at home (n=31) and a finger tapping test (FTT) in the clinic (n=11). We analyzed adherence (percentage of available measures that were completed) and user experience. We evaluated Spearman-Brown split-half reliability (100 iterations) using the first available assessment for each participant. We assessed test-retest reliability across all available assessments by estimating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). To investigate construct validity, we fit regression models testing the association of the smartphone measures with gold-standard neuropsychological outcomes (UDS3-EF composite [Staffaroni et al., 2021], CVLT3-Brief Form [CVLT3-BF] Immediate Recall, mechanical FTT), measures of disease severity (CDR®+NACC-FTLD Box Score & Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Rating Scale [PSPRS]), and regional gray matter volumes (cognitive tests only).

Participants completed 70% of tasks. Most reported that the instructions were understandable (93%), considered the time commitment acceptable (97%), and were willing to complete additional assessments (98%). Split-half reliability was excellent for the executive functioning (r’s=0.93-0.99) and good for the memory test (r=0.78). Test-retest reliabilities ranged from acceptable to excellent for cognitive tasks (ICC: 0.70-0.96) and were excellent for the balance (ICC=0.97) and good for FTT (ICC=0.89). Smartphone EF measures were strongly associated with the UDS3-EF composite (ß's=0.6-0.8, all p<.001), and the memory test was strongly correlated with total immediate recall on the CVLT3-BF (ß=0.7, p<.001). Smartphone FTT was associated with mechanical FTT (ß=0.9, p=.02), and greater acceleration on the balance test was associated with more motor features (ß=0.6, p=0.02). Worse performance on all cognitive tests was associated with greater disease severity (ß's=0.5-0.7, all p<.001). Poorer performance on the smartphone EF tasks was associated with smaller frontoparietal/subcortical volume (ß's=0.4-0.6, all p<.015) and worse memory scores with smaller hippocampal volume (ß=0.5, p<.001).

These results suggest remote digital data collection of cognitive and motor functioning in FTD research is feasible and acceptable. These findings also support the reliability and validity of unsupervised ALLFTD Mobile App cognitive tests and provide preliminary support for the motor measures, although further study in larger samples is required.

Little is known about the association of cortical Aβ with depression and anxiety among cognitively normal (CN) elderly persons.

We conducted a cross-sectional study derived from the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging in Olmsted County, Minnesota; involving CN persons aged ≥ 60 years that underwent PiB-PET scans and completed Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Cognitive diagnosis was made by an expert consensus panel. Participants were classified as having abnormal (≥1.4; PiB+) or normal PiB-PET (<1.4; PiB−) using a global cortical to cerebellar ratio. Multi-variable logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) after adjusting for age and sex.

Of 1,038 CN participants (53.1% males), 379 were PiB+. Each one point symptom increase in the BDI (OR = 1.03; 1.00–1.06) and BAI (OR = 1.04; 1.01–1.08) was associated with increased odds of PiB-PET+. The number of participants with BDI > 13 (clinical depression) was greater in the PiB-PET+ than PiB-PET- group but the difference was not significant (OR = 1.42; 0.83–2.43). Similarly, the number of participants with BAI > 10 (clinical anxiety) was greater in the PiB-PET+ than PiB-PET− group but the difference was not significant (OR = 1.77; 0.97–3.22).

As expected, depression and anxiety levels were low in this community-dwelling sample, which likely reduced our statistical power. However, we observed an informative albeit weak association between increased BDI and BAI scores and elevated cortical amyloid deposition. This observation needs to be tested in a longitudinal cohort study.