4.4 Article

Low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex transiently increases cue-induced craving for methamphetamine: A preliminary study

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 641-646

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.08.012

关键词

Methamphetamine; Craving; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P20 DA022658]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can temporarily interrupt or facilitate activity in a focal brain region. Several lines of evidence suggest that rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) can affect processes involved in drug addiction. We hypothesized that a single session of low-frequency rTMS of the left DLPFC would modulate cue-induced craving for methamphetamine (MA) when compared to a sham rTMS session. Methods: In this single-blind, sham-controlled crossover study, 10 non-treatment seeking MA-dependent users and 8 healthy controls were randomized to receive 15 min of sham and real (1 Hz) DLPFC rTMS in two experimental sessions separated by 1 h. During each rTMS session, participants were exposed to blocks of neutral cues and MA-associated cues. Participants rated their craving after each cue block. Results: In MA users, real rTMS over the left DLPFC increased self-reported craving as compared to sham stimulation (17.86 +/- 1.46 vs. 24.85 +/- 1.57, p = 0.001). rTMS had no effect on craving in healthy controls. One Hertz rTMS of the left DLPFC was safe and tolerable for all participants. Conclusions: Low frequency rTMS of the left DLPFC transiently increased cue-induced craving in MA participants. These preliminary results suggest that 1 Hz rTMS of the left DLPFC may increase craving by inhibiting the prefrontal cortex or indirectly activating subcortical regions involved in craving. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据