Coverage Policy Manual
Policy #: 2003055
Category: Medicine
Initiated: July 2003
Last Review: October 2016
  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Treatment of Depression and Other Psychiatric Disorders

Description:
Transcranial magnetic stimulation was first introduced in 1985 as a new method of noninvasive stimulation of the brain. The technique involves placement of a small coil over the scalp; a rapidly alternating current is passed through the coil wire, producing a magnetic field that passes unimpeded through the brain scalp. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was initially used to investigate nerve conduction; for example, transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex will produce a contralateral muscular-evoked potential. Interest in the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for depression was prompted by the development of a device that could deliver rapid, repetitive stimulation. In contrast to electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation does not require anesthesia, and does not induce a convulsion. Specifically, early studies suggested that transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex was associated with antidepressant properties.
 
While devices for transcranial stimulation have received approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for diagnostic uses, at the present time, no device has received FDA approval for transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain as a therapeutic procedure.  One device, NeoPulse (Neuronetic, Atlanta, GA) has received approval in Canada and Israel as a therapy for depression.
 
Participants of the FDA Neurological Devices Panel Meeting on Jan 26, 2007, were asked to determine if the risk benefit profile of the NeuroStar™, was comparable to the risk benefit profile of the predicate electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) devices.  The Panel was not asked for a recommendation regarding the regulatory determination of substantial equivalence for the 510(k) submission.  After reviewing submitted studies the Panel concluded effectiveness had not been demonstrated.  Some Panel members believed the device showed a signal of effectiveness that would make it worthwhile to perform another study to demonstrate that effectiveness.
 
There are CPT category I codes for this procedure:
 
90867: Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment; planning
90868: delivery and management, per session.
90869: susequent motor threshold re-determination with delivery and management
 
Code 90867 is reported once per course of treatment, and codes 90868 and 90869 cannot be reorted for the same session.
 
Prior to 2011, there were specific CPT category III codes for this procedure:
 
0160T: Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment planning
 
(Pre-treatment determination of optimal magnetic field strength via titration, treatment location determination and stimulation parameter and protocol programming in the therapeutic use of high power, focal magnetic pulses for the direct, non-invasive modulation of cortical neurons)
 
0161T: Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment delivery and management, per session
 
(Treatment session using high power, focal magnetic pulses for the direct, non-invasive modulation of cortical neurons. Clinical evaluation, safety monitoring and treatment parameter review in the therapeutic use of high power, focal magnetic pulses for the direct, non-invasive modulation of cortical neurons.)
 
 

Policy/
Coverage:
EFFECTIVE AUGUST 2015
 
Meets Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Covered For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
 
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the brain meets primary coverage criteria as a treatment of major depressive disorder when all of the following conditions (1-3) have been met:
 
    1. Confirmed diagnosis of severe major depressive disorder (single or recurrent) documented by standardized rating scales that reliably measure depressive symptoms; AND
 
2. Any one of the following (a, b or c):
 
a. Failure or inability to tolerate 4 trials of psychopharmacologic agents; OR
b. History of response to rTMS in a previous depressive episode (at least 3 months since the prior episode); OR
c. Is a candidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ECT would not be clinically superior to rTMS (eg, in cases with psychosis, acute suicidal risk, catatonia or life-threatening inanition rTMS should NOT be utilized);
AND
 
3. Failure of a trial of a psychotherapy known to be effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder of an adequate frequency and duration, without significant improvement in depressive symptoms, as documented by standardized rating scales that reliably measure depressive symptoms.
 
NOTE: A treatment course should not exceed 5 days a week for 6 weeks (total of 30 sessions), followed by a 3-week taper of 3 TMS treatments in week 1, 2 TMS treatments the next week, and 1 TMS treatment in the last week.
 
Does Not Meet Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Investigational For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
 
rTMS for major depressive disorder that does not meet the criteria listed above or as a treatment of all other psychiatric/neurologic disorders, including but not limited to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia,  obsessive-compulsive disorder or migraine headaches does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
 
For members with contracts without primary coverage criteria, rTMS for major depressive disorder that does not meet the criteria listed above or as a treatment of all other psychiatric/neurologic disorders, including but not limited to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder or migraine headaches is considered investigational. Investigational services are specific contract exclusions in most member benefit certificates of coverage.
 
Continued treatment with rTMS of the brain as maintenance therapy does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
 
For members with contracts without primary coverage criteria, continued treatment with rTMS of the brain as maintenance therapy is considered investigational. Investigational services are specific contract exclusions in most member benefit certificates of coverage.
 
EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO AUGUST 2015
Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain as a treatment of depression and other psychiatric disorders does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness in improving health outcomes.
 
For contracts without primary coverage criteria, transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain as a treatment of depression and other psychiatric disorders is considered investigational.  Investigational services are an exclusion in the member certificate of coverage.

Rationale:
This policy was created in 2001 and updated periodically with searches of the MEDLINE database. At the time this policy was created, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not cleared transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a therapeutic device for any neuropsychiatric disorder, including depression. In October 2008, the NeuroStar® TMS received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing clearance as a de novo device for therapy of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) who have failed one 6-week course of antidepressant medication.
Following is a summary of the key literature to date, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The evidence review is divided by indication and by key differences in treatment protocols, specifically high-frequency left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation (DLPFC), low-frequency (1–2 Hz) stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or combined high-frequency and low-frequency stimulation.
 
Depression
Studies published prior to 2008 are included if the study design was a randomized sham-controlled double-blind trial that enrolled at least 40 subjects; refer to the 2008 meta-analysis by Schutter for a summary of study characteristics and stimulation parameters used in these trials (Schutter, 2009). Note that over the last decade, there has been a trend to increase the intensity, trains of pulses, total pulses per session, and number of sessions (Gross, 2007). Unless otherwise indicated in the trials described below, stimulation was set at 100% to 120% of motor threshold, clinical response was defined as an improvement of 50% or more on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and remission was considered to be a score of 7 or less on the HAM-D.
 
High Frequency rTMS of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Lam and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing active versus sham repetitive TMS (rTMS) in patients with TRD, although there were varying definitions of TRD (Lam, 2008). This analysis calculated a number needed to treat of 6, with a clinical response in 25% of active rTMS and 9% of sham rTMS patients. Remission was reported for 17% of active rTMS and 6% of sham rTMS patients.
 
The largest study (23 study sites) included in the meta-analysis was a double-blind multicenter trial with 325 TRD patients randomly assigned to daily sessions of high-frequency active or sham rTMS (Monday to Friday for 6 weeks) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (O’Reardon, 2007). Treatment-resistant depression was defined as failure of at least 1 adequate course of antidepressant treatment. Patients had failed an average of 1.6 treatments in the current episode, with approximately half of the study population failing to benefit from at least 2 treatments. Loss to follow-up was similar in the 2 groups, with 301 (92.6%) patients completing at least 1 post-baseline assessment and an additional 8% of patients from both groups dropping out before the 4-week assessment. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed a trend favoring the active rTMS group in the primary outcome measure (2 points on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); p=0.057) and a modest (2-point) but significant improvement over sham treatment on the HAM-D. The authors reported that after 6 weeks of treatment, subjects in the active rTMS group were more likely to have achieved remission than the sham controls (14% vs. 5%, respectively), although this finding is limited by loss to follow-up.
 
In 2010, George et al. reported a randomized sham-controlled trial that involved 199 patients treated with left-prefrontal rTMS (George, 2010). This was a multi-centered study involving patients with a moderate level of treatment resistance. The response rate using an ITT analysis was 14% for rTMS and 5% for sham (p=0.02). In this study, the site for stimulation was determined through pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results from Phase 2 (open treatment of non-responders) and Phase 3 (maintenance and follow-up) will be reported in the future.
 
Another randomized sham-controlled double-blind trial was conducted in 68 patients who had failed at least 2 courses of antidepressants (Avery, 2006). Three patients in each group did not complete the 15 treatment sessions or were excluded due to a change in medication during treatment, resulting in 91% follow-up. Independent raters found a clinical response in 31% (11 of 35) of the active rTMS patients and 6% (2 of 33) of the sham group. The average change in HAM-D was 7.8 for the active group and 3.7 for the control group. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) decreased by 11.3 points in the active rTMS group and 4.8 points in controls. Remission was observed in 7 patients (20%) in the active rTMS group and 1 patient (3%) in the control group. Regarding effectiveness of blinding; 15% of subjects in each group guessed that they were receiving active TMS after the first session. After the 15th session, 58% of the rTMS group and 43% of the sham group guessed that they had received active TMS; responders were more likely than non-responders (85% vs. 42%, respectively) to think that they had received the active treatment. The 11 responders were treated with antidepressant medication and followed up for 6 months. Of these, 1 was lost to follow-up, 5 (45%) relapsed, and 5 (45%) did not relapse.
 
Rossini and colleagues randomly assigned 54 patients who had failed at least 2 adequate courses of antidepressants to sham control or active rTMS at 80% or 100% of motor threshold (MT) for 10 sessions over a 2-week period (Rossini, 2005). Double-blind evaluation found an intensity-dependent response with 6% (1 of 16) of the sham, 28% (5 of 18) of the 80% MT, and 61% (11 of 18) of the 100% MT groups showing improvement of 50% or more over a 5-week evaluation. All of the patients reported that they were unaware of the differences between sham and active stimulation.
 
In a 2008 report, Mogg et al. randomly assigned 59 patients with major depression who had failed at least 1 course of pharmacotherapy for the index depressive episode (Mogg, 2008). In this study population, 78% of the patients had failed 2 treatment courses and 53% had failed 3. The sham coil, which was provided by Magstim, was visually identical to the real coil and made the same clicking sound but did not deliver a magnetic field to scalp or cortex. Blinded assessments were performed 2 days after the fifth and final (tenth) sessions (97% follow-up), with additional assessments at 6 weeks (90% follow-up) and 4 months (83% follow-up). The mean group difference was estimated to be 0.3 points in HAM-D scores for the overall analysis. Interpretation of this finding is limited, since 7 sham patients (23%) were given a course of real rTMS after the 6-week assessment and analyzed as part of the sham group in the ITT analysis. The study was powered to detect a difference of 3.5 points in the HAM-D between the active and sham groups, and the 2.9-point group difference observed at the end of treatment was not significant. A higher percentage of patients in the active rTMS group achieved remission criteria of 8 points or less on the HAM-D (25% vs.10% control, respectively), and there was a trend for more patients to achieve clinical response in the active rTMS group (32% vs.10%, respectively, p=0.06). All of the 12 patients who met the criterion for clinical response (9 active and 3 sham) thought that they had received real rTMS, with more patients in the active group (70%) than the sham group (38%) guessing that they had received the real treatment. Interpretation of this finding is also limited, since the reason the subjects guessed that they had active treatment was not reported, and the subjects were not asked to guess before they began to show a clinical response.
 
A small double-blind randomized trial from 2009 suggests that specific targeting of Brodmann areas 9 and 46 may enhance the anti-depressant response compared with the standard targeting procedure, i.e., measuring 5 cm anterior from the motor cortex (Fitzgerald, 2009). Fifty-one patients who had failed at least two 6-week courses of antidepressant medication (average 5.7 failed courses) were randomly assigned to a standard localization procedure or to structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-aided localization for 3 weeks (with 1-week extension if >25% reduction on the MADRS). Six patients in the targeted group and 10 in the standard group withdrew due to lack of response. A single patient in the targeted group and 5 in the standard group withdrew for other reasons, resulting in 17 patients in the targeted group and 12 in the standard group continuing for the full 4 weeks of treatment. To adjust for the imbalance in discontinuation rates, a mixed model statistical analysis was used. There was a significant difference between the groups in the overall mixed model analysis, and planned comparisons showed significant improvement in MADRS scores for the targeted group at 4 weeks. Response criteria were met by 42% of the targeted group and 18% of the standard group. Remission criteria were met by 30% of the targeted group and 11% of the standard group. Although encouraging, additional trials with a larger number of subjects are needed to evaluate this procedure.
 
Several studies have compared the outcomes of rTMS with those from electroconvulsive therapy. In one study, 40 patients with nonpsychotic major depression were treated over the course of 1 month (20 total sessions) and evaluated with the HAM-D, in which a response was defined as a 50% decrease with a final score of less than or equal to 10 (Grunhaus, 2003). There was no difference in response rate between the 2 groups; 12 of 20 responded in the electroconvulsive therapy group compared to 11 of 20 in the magnetic stimulation group. A United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research health technology assessment compared efficacy and cost effectiveness of rTMS and electroconvulsive therapy (McLoughlin, 2007). Forty-six patients who had been referred for electroconvulsive therapy were randomly assigned to either electroconvulsive therapy (average of 6.3 sessions) or a 15-day course (5 treatments per week) of rTMS of the left DLPFC. Electroconvulsive therapy resulted in a 14-point improvement in the HAM-D and a 59% remission rate. Repetitive TMS was less effective than electroconvulsive therapy (5-point improvement in HAM-D and a 17% remission rate). Another study reported no significant difference between electroconvulsive therapy and rTMS in 42 patients with TRD; however, response rates for both groups were low. (14) The number of remissions (score of 7 or less on the HAM-D) totaled 3 (20%) for electroconvulsive therapy and 2 (10%) for rTMS.
 
Low Frequency rTMS of the Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex or Bilateral Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Fitzgerald et al. randomly assigned 60 patients who had failed a minimum of at least two 6-week courses of antidepressant medications into 1 of 3 groups; high frequency left rTMS, low frequency right rTMS, or sham stimulation over 10 sessions (Fitzgerald, 2003).  All patients who entered the study completed the double-blind randomized phase, which showed no difference between the 2 active treatments (left: 13.5% reduction; right: 15% reduction) and greater improvements in the MADRS scores compared to the sham group (0.76% reduction). Only 1 patient achieved 50% improvement during the initial 2 weeks. Then, only the subjects who showed at least 20% improvement at the end of the 10 sessions (15 active and 2 sham) continued treatment. Patients who did not respond by at least 20% were switched to a different active treatment. From week 2 to week 4, there was greater improvement in the low frequency right rTMS group compared with the high frequency left rTMS group (39% vs. 14% improvement in MADRS, respectively). Seven patients (18% of 40) showed a clinical response of greater than 50% by the end of the 4 weeks.
 
In a subsequent study, Fitzgerald and colleagues randomly assigned 50 patients with TRD to sequential bilateral active or sham rTMS (Fitgerald, 2006). After 2 weeks of treatment, 3 subjects had dropped out of the sham treatment group, and there was a slight but non-significant improvement favoring the active group for the MADRS (26.2 vs. 30.9, respectively) and the BDI (18.3 vs. 21.6, respectively). At this time point, 60% of subjects receiving active rTMS and 50% of subjects receiving sham treatment guessed that they were in the active group. The clinical response was reported by subjects as the major reason for their guess, with 11 of 13 responders (9 active and 2 sham) guessing that they were in the active group. As in the earlier study, only the subjects who showed at least 20% improvement at the end of each week continued treatment. Treatment on week 3 was continued for 15 subjects in the active group and 7 subjects in the sham group. By week 6, 11 subjects in the active rTMS remained in the study, with no control subjects remaining. Final ratings for the 11 subjects who continued to respond through week 6 were 8.9 on the MADRS and 9.2 on the BDI.
 
Another multicenter double-blind trial randomly assigned 130 patients with TRD to 5 sessions per week of either 1- or 2-Hz rTMS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Fitgerald, 2006). Sixty-eight patients (52%) completed 4 weeks of treatment; there was an approximate 30% improvement in depression scales, with no differences between the 1- or 2-Hz groups. Due to the potential for placebo effects for this type of intervention, the absence of a sham control group limits interpretation.
 
A small randomized, sham-controlled trial was published in 2010 that involved either right or left rTMS in 48 patients with TRD (Triggs, 2010). Overall reductions in the HAM-D-24 from baseline to 3 months were not significantly different between rTMS and sham treatment groups. In this small study, right cranial stimulation was significantly more effective than left cranial stimulation (sham or rTMS).
 
rTMS as an Adjunctive Treatment for Moderate to Severe Depression
Schutter conducted a meta-analysis of 30 double-blind randomized sham-controlled trials (1,164 patients) of high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in patients with major depression. (3) The pooled weighted mean effect size for treatment was calculated with Hedges g, a standardized mean difference that adjusts for sampling variance, to be 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25–0.54), which is considered moderate. For 27% of the population, rTMS was used as a primary/adjunctive treatment; 3 trials were included that used rTMS as a primary/adjunctive treatment for depression and enrolled more than 40 subjects (Koerselman, 2004; Rumi, 2005; Herwig, 2007). Repetitive TMS has also been examined in patients with clinical evidence of cerebrovascular disease and late-life depression (Jorge, 2008).
 
A 2012 study examined the efficacy of ultra-high-frequency (30 Hz) rTMS over the left prefrontal cortex in moderate to severely depressed patients who were taking medication (ullrich, 2012). Sham treatment consisted of low frequency stimulation to the left prefrontal cortex. No benefit of rTMS for depressive symptoms was found when lithium was added as a covariate. Ultra-high-frequency rTMS was found to improve performance on the trail-making test, which covaried with improvement of psychomotor retardation.
 
Additional research on whether adjunctive rTMS can improve response to pharmacologic treatment as a first-line therapy is needed.
 
Maintenance Therapy
Fitzgerald et al. reported a prospective open-label trial of clustered maintenance rTMS for patients with refractory depression (Fitgerald, 2012). All patients had received a second successful course of rTMS following relapse and were then treated with monthly maintenance therapy consisting of 5 rTMS treatments over a 2.5-day period (Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday). Patients were treated with maintenance therapy of the same type that they had initially received (14 high frequency to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 12 low frequency to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and 9 bilateral). The primary outcome was the mean duration until clinical relapse, addition or change of antidepressant medication, or withdrawal from maintenance treatment to pursue other treatment options. Of 35 patients, 25 (71%) relapsed at a mean of 10.2 months (range, 2 to 48 months), which was substantially shorter than the interval (<3 months) for relapse from the initial treatment.
 
Janicak and colleagues reported on assessment of relapse during a multisite, open-label study (Janicak, 2010). In this study, patients who met criteria for partial response during either a sham–controlled or open-label phase of a prior study were tapered from rTMS and simultaneously started on maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. They were then followed for 24 weeks. Ten of 99 patients relapsed. Thirty-eight patients had symptom worsening, and 32 of these (84%) had symptomatic benefit with adjunctive rTMS.
 
A retrospective study that included maintenance rTMS was reported by Connolly et al. in 2012 (Connolly, 2012). Out of the first 100 cases treated at their institution, 42 received maintenance rTMS. Most of the patients had failed more than 1 adequate antidepressant trial and were treated with high-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Low-frequency rTMS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was given in patients with a family or personal history of seizures and in some patients who were also receiving high-frequency rTMS. The response rate was 50.6% of the first 100 cases and the remission rate was 24.7%. Maintenance treatment (42 patients) was tapered gradually from 2 sessions per week for the first 3 weeks to monthly. At 6 months after the initial rTMS treatment, 26 of the 42 patients (62%) maintained their response.
 
Additional data are needed related to durability of effect and to maintenance phases.
 
Alzheimer’s Disease
Ahmed et al. randomized 45 patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease to 5 sessions of bi-lateral high-frequency rTMS, bi-lateral low-frequency rTMS, or sham TMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Ahmed, 2012). Thirty-two patients had mild to moderate dementia and 13 had severe dementia. There were no significant differences between groups at baseline. Measures of cortical excitability immediately after the last treatment session showed that treatment with high-frequency rTMS reduced the duration of transcallosal inhibition. At 3 months after treatment, the high-frequency rTMS group improved significantly more than the other 2 groups in standard rating scales, and subgroup analysis showed that this was due primarily to improvements in patients with mild/moderate dementia. Patients in the subgroup of mild to moderate dementia who were treated with high-frequency rTMS improved from 18.4 to 22.6 on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), from 20.1 to 24.7 on the Instrumental Daily Living Activity (IADL) scale and from 5.9 to 2.6 on the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).
 
Rabey et al. reported an industry-sponsored randomized double-blind trial of rTMS with cognitive training (NeuroAD system) in15 patients with probable mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (Rabey, 2012).  Patients received 5 sessions per week for 6 weeks over 6 different brain areas, followed by biweekly sessions for 3 months. Specific cognitive tasks were designed for the 6 targeted brain regions. These included syntax and grammar for Broca’s area, comprehension and categorization for Wernicke’s area, action naming, object naming and spatial memory tasks for the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and spatial attention tasks for the right and left somatosensory association cortex. After 6 weeks of treatment, there was an improvement in the average Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subsection (ADAS-cog) score of 3.76 points in the rTMS group compared to 0.47 in the placebo group. After 4.5 months of treatment, the ADAS-cog score in the rTMS group had improved by 3.52 points compared to a worsening of 0.38 in the placebo group. The Clinical Global Impression of Change improved significantly by an average of 3.57 after 6 weeks and 3.67 after 4.5 months compared to 4.25 and 4.29, respectively, in the placebo group.
 
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
In 2012, Weaver et al. reported a randomized sham-controlled crossover study of rTMS in 9 adolescents/young adults with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Weaver, 2012). rTMS was administered in 10 sessions over 2 weeks, with 1 week of no TMS between the active and sham phases. The clinical global impression and ADHD-IV scales improved in both conditions over the course of the study, with no significant differences between the active and sham phases.
 
Bulimia Nervosa
In 2008, Walpoth et al. reported no evidence of efficacy of rTMS in a small trial (n=14) of patients with bulimia nervosa (Walpoth, 2008).
 
Dysphagia
rTMS for the treatment of dysphagia following stroke has been examined in small randomized controlled trials. One study randomized 26 patients to rTMS or sham over the affected esophageal motor area of the cortex (Khedr, 2009). Ten minutes of rTMS over 5 days reduced both dysphagia on the Dysphagic Outcome and Severity scale and disability measured by the Barthel Index. There was a trend for improved hand grip strength in the rTMS group. Blinded assessment showed that the effects were maintained at 1 month and 2 month follow-up. Another study randomized 30 patients with dysphagia following stroke or traumatic brain injury to high-frequency rTMS, low-frequency rTMS, or sham stimulation (Kim, 2011). Active or sham rTMS was administered bilaterally over the anterolateral scalp over a period of 2 weeks. Swallowing scale scores improved in both the low-frequency and sham groups. Improvement in videofluoroscopic evaluation was greater in the low-frequency rTMS group than the other 2 groups. Blinding of evaluators was not described. Study in a larger number of subjects is needed to determine the efficacy of this treatment with greater certainty.
 
Epilepsy
In 2012, Sun et al. reported a randomized double-blind controlled trial of low-frequency rTMS to the epileptogenic zone for refractory partial epilepsy (Sun, 2012). Sixty patients were randomized into 2 groups; one group received 2 weeks of rTMS at 90% of resting motor threshold and the other group received rTMS at 20% of resting motor threshold. Outcomes were measured for 8 weeks after the end of treatment. With intent-to-treat analysis, high-intensity rTMS resulted in a significant decrease in seizures when compared to baseline (from 8.9 per week at baseline to 1.8 per week at follow-up) and when compared to low-intensity rTMS (from 8.6 at baseline to 8.4 per week at follow-up). High-intensity rTMS also decreased interictal discharges (from 75.1 to 33.6 per hour) and improved ratings on the Symptom Checklist-90. These initial results are promising, but require substantiation in additional trials.
 
Fibromyalgia
A 2012 systematic review included 4 studies on transcranial direct current stimulation and 5 on rTMS for treatment of fibromyalgia pain (Marlow, 2012). Three of the 5 trials were considered to be high quality. Four of the 5 were double-blind randomized controlled trials; the fifth included study was a case series of 4 patients who were blinded to treatment. Quantitative meta-analysis was not conducted due to variability in brain site, stimulation frequency/intensity, total number of sessions, and follow-up intervals, but 4 of the 5 studies on rTMS reported significant decreases in pain. Greater durability of pain reduction was observed with stimulation of the primary motor cortex compared to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
 
One of the studies included in the systematic review was a small 2011 trial that was conducted in the U.S. by Short et al. (Short, 2011) Twenty patients with fibromyalgia, defined by the American College of Rheumatology criteria, were randomized to 10 sessions of left prefrontal rTMS or sham TMS along with their standard medications. At 2 weeks after treatment, there was a significant change from baseline in average visual analog scale (VAS) for pain in the rTMS group (from 5.60 to 4.41) but not in the sham-treated group (from 5.34 to 5.37). There was also a significant improvement in depression symptoms in the active group compared to baseline (from 21.8 to 14.10) but not in the sham group (from 17.6 to 16.4). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in this small trial.
 
Additional study is needed to determine effective treatment parameters in a larger number of subjects and to evaluate durability of the effect.
 
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Two small (n=18 and 30) randomized sham-controlled trials found no evidence of efficacy for treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), although another small sham-controlled trial (n=21) reported promising results with bilateral stimulation of the supplementary motor area (Sachdev, 2007; Mantovani, 2010; Mansur, 2011).
 
Panic Disorder
In 2013, Mantovani et al. reported a randomized double-blind sham-controlled trial of low-frequency rTMS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in 21 patients with panic disorder with comorbid major depression (Mantovani, 2013). Response was defined as a 40% or greater decrease on the panic disorder severity scale (PDSS) and a 50% or greater decrease on the HAM-D. After 4 weeks of treatment, the response rate for panic was 50% with active rTMS and 8% with sham. There was no significant difference in the response rate for depressive symptoms (25% active rTMS vs. 8% for sham). After an additional 4 weeks of open-label treatment, the response rate was 67% for panic and 50% for depressive symptoms. Five of 12 responders returned for 6-month follow-up and showed sustained improvement.
 
Parkinson Disease
A systematic review from 2009 included 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 275 patients with Parkinson disease (Elahi, 2009). Seven of the studies were double-blind, one was not blinded and 2 of the studies did not specify whether the raters were blinded. In studies that used high-frequency rTMS there was a significant improvement on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) with a moderate effect size of -0.58. For low-frequency rTMS, the results were heterogeneous and did not significantly reduce the UPDRS. The analyzed studies varied in outcomes reported, rTMS protocol, patient selection criteria, demographics, stages of Parkinson disease and duration of follow-up, which ranged from immediate to 16 weeks after treatment
 
In 2012, Benninger et al. reported a randomized double-blind sham-controlled trial of brief (6 sec) very-high-frequency (50 Hz) rTMS over the motor cortex in 26 patients with mild to moderate Parkinson disease (Benninger, 2012). Eight sessions of 50 Hz rTMS did not improve gait, bradykinesia, or global and motor scores on the UPDRS compared to the sham-treated group. Activities of daily living were significantly improved a day after the intervention, but the effect was no longer evident at 1 month after treatment. Functional status and self-reported well-being were not affected by the treatment. No adverse effects of the very-high-frequency stimulation were identified.
 
Another study from 2012 randomized 20 patients with Parkinson disease to 12 brief sessions (6 min) of high-frequency (5-Hz) rTMS or sham rTMS over the leg area of the motor cortex followed by treadmill training (Yang, 2013). Blinded evaluation showed a significant effect of rTMS combined with treadmill training on neurophysiological measures, and change in fast walking speed and the timed up and go task. Mean treadmill speed improved to a similar extent in the active and sham rTMS groups.
 
Additional study with a larger number of subjects and longer follow-up is needed to determine if rTMS improves motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson disease.
 
Postpartum Depression
Myczkowski et al. conducted a double-blind sham-controlled study of 14 patients with postpartum depression randomized to 20 sessions of active or sham rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Myczkowski, 2012).  A positive response to treatment was defined as a reduction of at least 30% in the HAM-D and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). At 2 weeks after the end of treatment, the active rTMS group showed significant improvements in the HAM-D, Global Assessment Scale, Clinical Global Impression and Social Adjustment Scale. The difference in the EPDS (reduction of 39.4% vs. 6.2% for sham) did not reach statistical significance in this small study, and there were marginal cognitive and social improvements. In addition, results were presented as mean values, rather than by the proportion of patients who showed clinically meaningful improvement.
 
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
The efficacy of rTMS for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been examined in several small randomized controlled trials.
 
A 2004 study randomized 24 patients with PTSD to 10 sessions of low-frequency (1 Hz), high-frequency (10 Hz) or sham rTMS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Cohen, 2004). Blinded assessment 2 weeks after the intervention found that high-frequency rTMS improved the self-reported PTSD checklist (PCL) by 29.3%, the clinician evaluation on the Treatment Outcome PTSD scale by 39.0%, the HAM-D by 25.9%, and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale by 44.1%. Scores for the sham and low-frequency group were not significantly improved.
 
In 2012, Watts et al reported a double-blind trial with 20 patients randomized to low -frequency rTMS or sham over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Watts, 2012). Blinded evaluation at the end of treatment showed clinically significant improvements in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and the PCL compared with sham. Depressive and anxiety symptoms also improved in the rTMS group. Six of the 10 rTMS patients showed a degradation of symptoms between the immediate post-treatment assessment and the 2-month post-treatment follow-up.
 
In another double-blind trial, 30 patients with PTSD were randomized to deep, high-frequency rTMS after brief exposure to a script of the traumatic event, rTMS after a script of a non-traumatic event, or sham stimulation after a brief script of the traumatic event (Isserles, 2012). Patients received 3 treatment sessions per week for 4 weeks, and response was defined as a 50% or greater improvement in CAPS score. Intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant improvement in the total CAPS score in the exposure + stimulation group (24.3) compared to rTMS alone (7.9) or traumatic exposure with sham rTMS (9.1). The greatest improvement was in the intrusive component of the CAPS scale. Heart rate responses to the traumatic script were also reduced over the 4 weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients who showed a response to treatment was not reported and the durability of the response was not assessed.
 
Conclusions. Several small randomized controlled trials have reported improvement of PTSD with rTMS over the right dorsolateral cortex. Results of high-frequency versus low-frequency stimulation are conflicting, and durability of the response has not been assessed. Additional study is needed.
 
Schizophrenia
One of the largest areas of TMS research outside of depressive disorders is the treatment of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia resistant to pharmacotherapy. In 2011, a technology assessment reviewed five meta-analyses along with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which measurements were carried out beyond the treatment period (TEC, 2011). A meta-analysis of the effect of TMS on positive symptoms of schizophrenia (hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized speech and behavior) did not find a significant effect of TMS (Freitas, 2009). Four meta-analyses that looked specifically at auditory hallucinations showed a significant effect of TMS (Freitas, 2009; Tranulis, 2008; Aleman, 2007; Slotema, 2010). It was noted that outcomes were evaluated at the end of treatment, and the durability of the effect is unknown.
 
A 2012 meta-analysis included 17 randomized double-blind sham-controlled trials (n=337) of the effect of rTMS on auditory hallucinations (Slotema, 2012). When measured at the end of treatment, the mean effect size of rTMS directed at the left temporoparietal area was 0.40 (moderate), and the effect size of rTMS directed at all brain regions was 0.33 (small). For the 5 trials that examined outcomes of rTMS one month after treatment, the effect was no longer significant.
 
Blumberger et al. examined the efficacy of priming stimulation (6 Hz) prior to low-frequency stimulation (1 Hz) of Heschl’s gyrus within the left temporoparietal cortex (Blumberger, 2012). Fifty-four patients with medication-resistant auditory hallucinations were randomized to receive 20 sessions of left-sided stimulation, priming, or sham rTMS. Response rates on the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale did not differ between the 3 treatment groups.
 
A small (n=18) double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial from 2012 found no significant effect of deep rTMS with an H1 coil on auditory hallucinations (Rosenberg, 2012).
 
Conclusions: The evidence on rTMS for the treatment of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia consists of a number of small randomized controlled trials. Evidence to date shows small to moderate effects on hallucinations when measured at the end of treatment, but evidence suggests that the effect is not durable.
 
Stroke
Hsu et al. reported a meta-analysis of the effect of rTMS on upper limb motor function in patients with stroke in 2012 (Hsu, 2012). Eighteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 392 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Most of the studies were double blind (n=11) or single blind (n=3). Eight studies applied low frequency (1 Hz) rTMS over the unaffected hemisphere, 5 applied high frequency (5 Hz) rTMS over the affected hemisphere, and 2 used both low- and high-frequency stimulation. Outcomes included kinematic motion analyses (5 trials), hand grip (2 trials), and the Wolf Motor Function Test (2 trials). Meta-analysis of results showed a moderate effect size (0.55) for rTMS on motor outcome, with a greater effect size of rTMS in patients with subcortical stroke (mean effect size, 0.73) compared to non-specified lesion sites (mean effect size, 0.45), and for studies applying low-frequency rTMS (mean effect size, 0.69) compared to high-frequency rTMS (effect size, 0.41). Effect size of 0.5 or greater was considered to be clinically meaningful.
 
In 2012, Seniow et al. reported a randomized double-blind sham-controlled pilot study of low-frequency rTMS (1 Hz at 90% of resting motor threshold for 30 min) to the contralesional motor cortex combined with physiotherapy in patients with moderate upper extremity hemiparesis following stroke (Seniow, 2012). Power analysis indicated that a sample size of 129 patients would be required to detect changes in functional motor ability, but only 40 patients met eligibility criteria over the 4 years of the study. Blinded analysis showed no significant difference in hand function or level of neurological deficit between active or sham rTMS when measured either immediately after the 3-week intervention or at 3-month follow-up.
 
Conclusions. Evidence consists of a number of randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis of the effect of rTMS on recovery from stroke. Results are conflicting, and efficacy may depend on the location of the stroke and frequency of the rTMS. Additional study is needed to determine whether rTMS facilitates standard physiotherapy in patients with stroke.
 
Summary
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) involves placement of a small coil over the scalp; passing a rapidly alternating current through the coil wire, which produces a magnetic field that passes unimpeded through the scalp and bone, resulting in electrical stimulation of the cortex. Evidence on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation ( rTMS) for depression and other psychiatric/neurologic disorders is insufficient to permit conclusions regarding the effect of this technology on health outcomes. The literature on rTMS for treatment-resistant depression is the most developed and includes a number of double-blind randomized sham-controlled short-term trials. Results of these trials show mean improvements of uncertain clinical significance across groups as a whole. The percentage of subjects who show a clinically significant response is reported at approximately 2 to 3 times that of sham controls, with approximately 15% to 25% of patients meeting the definition of clinical response (Connolly, 2012).
 
The treatment protocols are time intensive, and the patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment are not currently known. Importantly, a number of open issues need to be addressed before this procedure is widely implemented. The available studies do not establish that rTMS is as good as available alternatives, as the vast majority of the trials do not compare rTMS to alternative active treatments. Alternative treatments include a variety of different medication regimens and psychological talk therapy, both of which have demonstrated efficacy. In addition, further research is needed to determine which of the locations and treatment parameters examined to date are most effective to guide the number of sessions needed to elicit a clinically significant response, to determine whether the response is durable with or without anti-depressant medications, and to provide some information about whether maintenance treatments are needed, and which types of maintenance treatment are most effective.
 
For other psychiatric/neurologic conditions, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether rTMS leads to improved outcomes. The available clinical trials are small and report mixed results for a variety of conditions other than depression. There are no large, high-quality trials for any of these other conditions.
 
Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) updated their clinical guidelines on neurostimulation therapies for the management of major depressive disorder in adults (Kennedy, 2009). The evidence reviewed supported electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as a first-line treatment under specific circumstances; when used in patients who have failed to respond to one or more adequate antidepressant medication trials, ECT response rates have been estimated to be 50–60%. The guidelines considered rTMS to be a safe and well-tolerated treatment, with no evidence of cognitive impairment. Based on the 2008 meta-analysis by Lam et al., (Lam, 2008) response (25%) and remission (17%) rates were found to be greater than sham but lower than for other interventions for TRD, leading to a recommendation for rTMS as a second-line treatment. The guidelines indicated that there is a major gap in the evidence base regarding maintenance rTMS, as only one open-label case series was identified.
 
The Movement Disorder Society published an evidence-based review of treatments for the non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in 2011 (Seppi, 2011). The review found insufficient evidence to make adequate conclusions on the efficacy rTMS for the treatment of depression in Parkinson’s disease.
 
2014 Update
 
A literature search conducted through February 2014 did not reveal any new information that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
 
2015 Update
This policy was reviewed with a literature search using the MEDLINE database through February 2015. There was no new RCTs or other publications identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
 
2015 Update- Addendum
The available literature on the use of rTMS for the treatment of depression was reviewed again through August 2015 focusing on the use of rTMS in the treatment of depression. The coverage statement has been changed as a result of the review. The following is a summary of the key identified literature.
 
A 2013 systematic review by Berlim et al identified 7 RCTs with a total of 294 patients that directly compared rTMS and ECT treatment for patients with depression (Berlim, 2013). After an average of 15.2 sessions of high-frequency rTMS over the left DLFPC, 33.6% of patients were classified as remitters. This compared to 52% of patients who were classified as remitters following an average of 8.2 ECT sessions. The pooled odds ratio was 0.46, indicating a significant difference in outcome favoring ECT. There was no significant difference in dropout rates for the 2 treatments.
 
In 2014, Dunner et al reported 1 year follow-up with maintenance therapy from a large multicenter observational study (42 sites) of rTMS for patients with TRD (Dunner, 2014). A total of 257 patients agreed to participate in the follow-up study out of 307 who were initially treated with rTMS. Of these, 205 completed the 12-month follow-up, and 120 patients had met the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report (IDS-SR) response or remission criteria at the end of treatment. Ninety-three of the 257 patients (36.2%) who enrolled in the follow-up study received additional rTMS (mean of 16.2 sessions). Seventy-five of the 120 patients (62.5%) who met response or remission criteria at the end of the initial treatment phase (including a 2 month taper phase) continued to meet response criteria through follow-up.
 
A group of European experts was commissioned to establish evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of rTMS.  The guidelines included evidence published up until March 2014 (Lefaucheur, 2014). For most indications there was an absence of sufficient evidence and the committee could provide no recommendation. Indications which had a recommendation of a definite effect were neuropathic pain and depression. Indications which had a recommendation for a possible or probable effect included CRPS, Parkinson disease, motor stroke, hemispatial neglect, epilepsy, tinnitus, anxiety disorders, auditory hallucinations, negative symptom of schizophrenia, addiction and craving.
 
In summary, the literature on repetitive TMS (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) includes numerous double-blind, randomized sham-controlled short-term trials. Results of these trials show mean improvements of uncertain clinical significance across groups as a whole. The percentage of subjects who show a clinically significant response is reported at approximately 2 to 3 times that of sham controls, with approximately 15% to 25% of patients meeting the definition of clinical response. Based on the short-term benefit observed in randomized controlled trials, clinical input, and the lack of alternative treatments aside from electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients with treatment resistant depression, rTMS meets primary coverage criteria in patients with TRD who meet specific criteria.
  

CPT/HCPCS:
90867Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; initial, including cortical mapping, motor threshold determination, delivery and management
90868Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent delivery and management, per session
90869Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent motor threshold re-determination with delivery and management

References: Ahmed MA, Darwish ES, Khedr EM et al.(2012) Effects of low versus high frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cortical excitability in Alzheimer's dementia. J Neurol 2012; 259(1):83-92.

Aleman A, Sommer IE, Kahn RS.(2007) Efficacy of slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of resistant auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry, 68:416-21.

Avery DH, Holtzheimer PE 3rd, Fawaz W et al.(2006) . A controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in medication-resistant major depression. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 59(2):187-94.

Benninger DH, Iseki K, Kranick S et al.(2012) Controlled study of 50-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26(9):1096-105.

Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ.(2013) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and acceptability of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression. Psychol Med. 2013 Nov;43(11):2245-54.

Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ.(2013) Efficacy and acceptability of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) versus electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Depress Anxiety. Jul 2013;30(7):614-623. PMID 23349112

Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ.(2013) High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation accelerates and enhances the clinical response to antidepressants in major depression: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. Feb 2013;74(2):e122-129. PMID 23473357

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. TEC Assessments 2009; Volume 24, Tab 5.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC).(2011) Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of schizophrenia. TEC Assessments 2011; Volume 26, Tab 6.

Blumberger DM, Christensen BK, Zipursky RB et al.(2012) MRI-targeted repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of Heschl's gyrus for refractory auditory hallucinations. Brain Stimul 2012; 5(4):577-85.

Braz J Med Biol Res. 2015 Mar;48(3):198-206.(2015) Bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Zhang YQ, Zhu D, Zhou XY, et al.

Cohen H, Kaplan Z, Kotler M et al.(2004) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161(3):515-24.

Connolly KR, Helmer A, Cristancho MA et al.(2012) Effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice post-FDA approval in the United States: results observed with the first 100 consecutive cases of depression at an academic medical center. J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73(4):e567-73.

Dunner DL, Aaronson ST, Sackeim HA, et al.(2014) A multisite, naturalistic, observational study of transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with pharmacoresistant major depressive disorder: durability of benefit over a 1-year follow-up period. J Clin Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;75(12):1394-401.

Elahi B, Elahi B, Chen R.(2009) Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on Parkinson motor function--systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Mov Disord 2009; 24(3):357-63.

Eranti S, Mogg A, et al.(2007) A randomized, controlled trial with 6-month follow-up of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroconvulsive therapy for severe depression. Am J Psychiatry, 2007; 164:73-81.

Fitzgerald PB, Brown TL, Marston NA et al.(2003) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60(10):1002-8.

Fitzgerald PB, Grace N, Hoy KE et al.(2012) An open label trial of clustered maintenance rTMS for patients with refractory depression. Brain Stimul 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

Fitzgerald PB, Hoy K, McQueen S et al.(2009) A randomized trial of rTMS targeted with MRI based neuronavigation in treatment-resistant depression. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009; 4(5):1255-62

Fitzgerald PB, Huntsman S, Gunewardene R et al.(2006) A randomized trial of low-frequency rightprefrontal-cortex transcranial magnetic stimulation as augmentation in treatment-resistant major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2006; 9(6):655-66.

Freitas C, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A.(2009) Meta-analysis of the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on negative and positive symptoms in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res, 108:11-24.

George MS, Lisanby SH, Avery D et al.(2010) Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010; 67(5):507-16.

George MS, Wassermann EM, Kimbrell TA, et al.(1997) Mood improvement following daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression: a placebo controlled crossover trial. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154(12):1752-6.

Gross M, Nakamura L, Pascual-Leone A et al.(2007) Has repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for depression improved? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the recent vs. the earlier rTMS studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2007; 116(3):165-73.

Grunhaus L, Schreiber S, Dolberg OT et al.(2003) A randomized controlled comparison of electroconvulsive therapy and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in severe and resistant nonpsychotic major depression. Biol Psychiatry 2003; 53(4):324-31.

Hasey G.(2001) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of mood disorder: a review and comparison with electroconvulsive therapy. Can J Psychiatr 2001; 46(8): 720-7.

Hausmann A, Kemmler G, Walpoth M, et al.(2004) No benefit derived from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression; A prospective single centre, randomized, double blind, sham controlled “add on” trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75:320-22.

Herrmann LL, Ebmeier KP.(2006) Factors modifying the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a review. J Clin Psychiatry, 2006; 67:1870-6.

Holtzheimer PE, Russo J, Avery DH.(2001) A metaanalysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 2001; 35(4): 149-69.

Hsu WY, Cheng CH, Liao KK et al.(2012) Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor functions in patients with stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2012; 43(7):1849-57.

Isserles M, Shalev AY, Roth Y et al.(2012) Effectiveness of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with a brief exposure procedure in post-traumatic stress disorder - A pilot study. Brain Stimul 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

Janicak PG, Dowd SM, Martis B, et al.(2002) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy for major depression: preliminary results of a randomized trial. Biol Psychiatry 2002; 51(8): 659-67.

Janicak PG, Nahas Z, Lisanby SH et al.(2010) Durability of clinical benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant major depression: assessment of relapse during a 6-month, multisite, open-label study. Brain Stimul 2010; 3(4):187-99.

Jorge RE, Moser DJ, Acion L et al.(2008) Treatment of vascular depression using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008; 65(3):268-76.

Kedzior KK, Reitz SK, Azorina V, and Loo C.(2015) Durability of the antidepressant effect of the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the absence of maintenance treatment in major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trials. Depress Anxiety. 2015 Mar;32(3):193-203.

Kennedy SH, Milev R, Giacobbe P et al.(2009) Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. IV. Neurostimulation therapies. Neurostimulation therapies. J Affect Disord 2009; 117 Suppl 1:S44-53.

Kennedy SH, Milev R, Giacobbe P et al;(2009) Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. IV. Neurostimulation therapies. J Affect Disord 2009; 117(Suppl 1):S44-53.

Khedr EM, Abo-Elfetoh N, Rothwell JC.(2009) Treatment of post-stroke dysphagia with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Acta Neurol Scand 2009; 119(3):155-61.

Kim L, Chun MH, Kim BR et al.(2011) Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on patients with brain injury and Dysphagia. Ann Rehabil Med 2011; 35(6):765-71.

Klein E, Kreinin I, Chistyakov A, et al.(1999) Therapeutic efficacy of right prefrontal slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression: a double-blind controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56(4):315-20.

Koerselman F, Laman DM, van Duijn H, et al.(2004) A 3-month follow-up, randomized, placebo-controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 65:1323-9.

Lam RW, Chan P, Wilkins-Ho M et al.(2008) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatmentresistant depression: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Can J Psychiatry 2008; 53(9):621-31.

Lefaucheur JP, Andre-Obadia N, Antal A, et al.(2014) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Nov;125(11):2150-206.

Levkovitz Y, Isserles M, Padberg F, et al.(2015) Efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;14(1):64-73.

Loo C, Mitchell P, Sachdev P, et al.(1999) Double-blind controlled investigation of transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of resistant major depression. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156(6):946-8.

Mansur CG, Myczkowki ML, de Barros Cabral S et al.(2011) 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.

Mantovani A, Aly M, Dagan Y et al.(2013) Randomized sham controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for the treatment of panic disorder with comorbid major depression. J Affect Disord 2013; 144(1-2):153-9.

Mantovani A, Simpson HB, Fallon BA et al.(2010) Randomized sham-controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2010; 13(2):217-27.

Marlow NM, Bonilha HS, Short EB.(2012) Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review. Pain Pract 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

Martin JL, Barbanoj MJ, Schlaepfer TE, et al.(2002) Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression. Cochrane Library; Issue 4, Oxford. Update Software 2002.

McLoughlin DM, Mogg A, Eranti S et al.(2007) The clinical effectiveness and cost of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy in severe depression: a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11(24):1-54.

McNamara B, Ray JL, Arthur OJ, et al.(2001) Transcranial stimulation for depression and other psychiatric disorders. Psychol Med 2001; 31(7): 1141-6.

Mogg A, Pluck G, Eranti SV et al.(2008) A randomized controlled trial with 4-month follow-up of adjunctive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex for depression. Psychol Med 2008; 38(3):323-33.

Mosimann UP, Schmitt W, Greenberg BD, et al.(2004) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a putative add-on treatment for major depression in elderly patients. Psychiatry Res 2004; 126:123-33.

Myczkowski ML, Dias AM, Luvisotto T et al.(2012) Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on clinical, social, and cognitive performance in postpartum depression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2012; 8:491-500.

O'Reardon JP, Solvason HB, Janicak PG et al.(2007) Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62(11):1208-16.

Pascual-Leone A, Rubio B, Pallardo F, et al.(1996) Rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in drug-resistant depression. Lancet 1996; 348(9022):233-7.

Rabey JM, Dobronevsky E, Aichenbaum S et al.(2012) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, double-blind study. J Neural Transm 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

Rachid F, Bertschy G.(2006) Safety and efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a critical appraisal of the last 10 years. Neurophysiol Clin, 2006; 36:157-83.

Ren J, Li H, Palaniyappan L, et al.(2014) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy for major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Jun 3;51:181-9.

Rosa MA, Gattaz WF, Pascual-Leone A et al.(2006) Comparison of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroconvulsive therapy in unipolar non-psychotic refractory depression: a randomized, single-blind study. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2006; 9(6):667-76.

Rosenberg O, Gersner R, Klein LD et al.(2012) Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation add-on for the treatment of auditory hallucinations: a double-blind study. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2012; 11:13.

Rossini D, Lucca A, Zanardi R et al.(2005) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depressed patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychiatry Res 2005; 137(1-2):1-10.

Rossini PM, Rossi S.(2007) Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Diagnostic, therapeutic, and research potential. Neurology, 2007; 68:484-8.

Sachdev PS, Loo CK, Mitchell PB et al.(2007) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder: a double-blind controlled investigation. Psychol Med 2007; 37(11):1645-9.

Schutter DJ.(2009) Antidepressant efficacy of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in double-blind sham-controlled designs: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2009; 39(1):65-75.

Seniow J, Bilik M, Lesniak M et al.(2012) Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with physiotherapy in rehabilitation of poststroke hemiparesis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26(9):1072-9.

Seppi K, Weintraub D, Coelho M et al.(2011) The Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine Review Update: Treatments for the non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2011; 26 Suppl 3:S42-80.

Short EB, Borckardt JJ, Anderson BS et al.(2011) Anderson BS et al. Ten sessions of adjunctive left prefrontal rTMS significantly reduces fibromyalgia pain: A randomized, controlled pilot study. Pain 2011; 152(11):2477-84.

Slotema CW, Aleman A, Daskalakis ZJ et al.(2012) Meta-analysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations: update and effects after one month. Schizophr Res 2012; 142(1-3):40-5.

Slotema CW, B.lom JD, Hoek HW et al.(2010) Should we expand the toolbox of psychiatric treatment methods to include Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS)? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of r TMS in psychiatric disorders. J Clin Psychiatry, 71:873-84.

Sun W, Mao W, Meng X et al.(2012) Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy: a controlled clinical study. Epilepsia 2012; 53(10):1782-9.

Tranulis C, Sepehry AA, Galinowski A, Stip E.(2008) Should we treat auditory hallucinations with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation? A metaanalysis. Can J Psychiatry, 53:577-86.

Triggs WJ, Ricciuti N, Ward HE et al.(2010) Right and left dorsolateral pre-frontal rTMS treatment of refractory depression: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Psychiatry Res 2010; 178(3):467-74.

Ullrich H, Kranaster L, Sigges E et al.(2012) Ultra-high-frequency left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation as augmentation in severely ill patients with depression: a naturalistic sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. Neuropsychobiology 2012; 66(3):141-8.

Walpoth M, Hoertnagl C, Mangweth-Matzek B et al.(2008) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in bulimia nervosa: preliminary results of a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in female outpatients. Psychother Psychosom 2008; 77(1):57-60.

Watts BV, Landon B, Groft A et al.(2012) A sham controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder. Brain Stimul 2012; 5(1):38-43.

Weaver L, Rostain AL, Mace W et al.(2012) Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents and young adults: a pilot study. J ECT 2012; 28(2):98-103.

Yang YR, Tseng CY, Chiou SY et al.(2013) Combination of rTMS and treadmill training modulates corticomotor inhibition and improves walking in Parkinson disease: a randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27(1):79-86.


Group specific policy will supersede this policy when applicable. This policy does not apply to the Wal-Mart Associates Group Health Plan participants or to the Tyson Group Health Plan participants.
CPT Codes Copyright © 2017 American Medical Association.