Magnetic Stimulation: The Latest Fad Magnet for Autism Spectrum Disorder

by Kathryn Gorycki, M.A., & Thomas Zane, Ph.D., BCBA-D
University of Kansas
Department of Applied Behavioral Science

Recently, the NeuroHealth Center (https://neurohealthcenters.org/) opened a treatment center that uses magnetic stimulation to treat autistic patients in New Jersey. The NeuroHealth Center was inspired by parents of their child, Frankie, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The parents claimed that after 20 treatments of magnetic stimulation, Frankie emerged as a “new” child and thus, the parents decided to devote their lives to helping families facing the challenges of Autism by partnering with the founder of PeakLogic (n.d.) and creator of Personalized Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (PrTMS).

Barmakian (2022) described PrTMS as a pain-free, drug-free, noninvasive procedure that can change the life of children and adults with ASD. The PrTMS procedure delivers personalized, repetitive magnetic pulses to targeted brain areas. During each treatment session, an electromagnetic coil is placed near the patient’s scalp at targeted locations, supposedly stimulating specific brain neurons, resulting in improved executive functioning (Barmakian, 2022). According to Neurohealth Center, continued treatment is recommended if patients respond positively within the first two weeks. Responding positively was determined from an EEG that is “taken every five days to determine progress and the treatment’s path forward.” However, if the patient is not responding in the first two weeks, the recommendation is to discontinue treatment.

Barmakian (2022) stated that the center was inspired by Frank and Mary Plut, who witnessed the impact PrTMS had on their young son, Frankie, and are passionate about helping other families affected by ASD. The article uses this “miracle story” to state that Frankie was nonverbal 30 days before the treatment and is now speaking. Also, instead of walking on his toes, Frankie began walking with his feet flat on the ground. Even further, the center makes claims that it may change patients’ lives by reducing destructive behaviors, promoting social interactions and eye contact, fostering adaptability to smoothly transition from one activity to another, decreasing anxiety and enhancing stress coping mechanisms, improving overall mood, and reducing depression, promoting sleep, advancing memory and mental clarity, and increasing attention span and ability to focus. Additionally, Barmakian stated that PrTMS is FDA approved to treat Major Depressive Disorder and may be used Off Label (not covered by insurance) to treat a variety of disorders (e.g., autism, anxiety disorder, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, stroke, dementia, Parkinson’s, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other neurological disorders). There is no information on the NeuroHealth Center’s website regarding other success stories or success rates.

Although the Frankie story is quite inspiring, it is important to turn to the scientific research to examine the potential benefit/harm of PrTMS, and whether these extraordinary claims in the article by Barmakian are true.  Searching for research studies focusing on the use of PrTMS with autism, one finds a shocking lack of research. Oberman and colleagues (2015) critically reviewed the current scientific evidence for using this procedure with autism, reviewing approximately 100 patients that have undergone rTMS protocols with therapeutic intent across 8 studies that all used different parameters and locations of stimulation. The authors summarized studies included by (a) number of participants, (b) distribution of autism vs. diagnostic criteria, (c) age of participant’s, TMS parameters (number of sessions, frequency, location), (d) effects, and (e) whether there were adverse events/side effects. Results for TMS (one- to two- sessions) found no group differences in seven of the nine studies. Results for rTMS found improvements in all eight studies. However, the behavioral improvements appear to be limited to repetitive behaviors, irritability, and specific measures of attention. Additionally, the quality of the evidence seems to be mixed. For example, only 2 of the 8 studies used a double-blind experimental design, and 5 of the 8 studies failed to specifically indicate subject characteristics. Oberman and colleagues also noted that clarification was needed as to the proportion of subjects had experienced improvement in symptoms and what proportion had experienced no improvement or worsening of symptoms following rTMS. Furthermore, the authors noted that it was unclear what protocol for the treatment (i.e., stimulation level, number and timing of sessions) was identified to be best to target specific symptoms of ASD. The authors concluded that therapeutic results have been mixed, suggesting there currently is insufficient evidence to conclusively support the clinical widespread use of TMS in ASD, neither diagnostically nor therapeutically.

Wexler and colleagues (2021) noted that TMS has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for specific conditions, including depression, migraines, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and smoking cessation. This procedure has not been approved for use with ASD. However, in their report, the authors found that there are numerous websites of clinics that offer TMS who claim that this procedure offers potential benefit when treating ASD. Wexler and colleagues caution about potential ethical issues if using for ASD and other treatments for which there is little empirical research to support its use.

In addition to the issue of the existence of experimental evidence showing effectiveness, another issue relates to potential physical damage through magnetic stimulation. Huashuang  and colleagues (2022) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of adverse effects related to TMS. A total of 11 studies met the inclusionary criteria. The authors found that all reported adverse effects were mild, with relatively few serious adverse effects and were resolved with medication or rest. Further, Huashuang and colleagues found that there was no significant chance in prevalence of adverse effects for (a) purpose of using TMS, (b) mean age of participants, (c) whether the stimulation was site was dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex, (d) intensity of TMS, and (e) the number of stimulation sessions. The authors concluded that further studies are necessary to clarify the variation in the prevalence. In sum, the overall prevalence of adverse effects among ASD was 25% and further studies are needed to clarify the variation in the prevalence.

Thus, scientific research emphasizes three points: (1) TMS is not approved for use with ASD; (2) the research conducted on these procedures with individuals diagnosed with ASD shows mixed findings, with weak evidence suggesting it is effective, and (3) there seem to be minimal and nonpermanent adverse effects of the procedure. Thus, more information and research are crucial before determining the potential effects of this new treatment. We urge readers to closely review scientific literature. We must consider the claims about the treatment effects carefully before making a reasonable decision about whether there is any merit behind this new fad treatment. For magnetic stimulation therapy, caregivers should wait to use this form of treatment until there is a significant body of research supporting its effectiveness. We urge our readers to be skeptical about PrTMS and consider the implications of claims that this intervention cures autism.

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is considered the only ASD treatment considered evidence-based practice by the United States Surgeon General (1999), meaning that ABA has passed scientific tests of its usefulness, quality, and effectiveness. A defining feature of ABA is that it focuses on behaviors of social importance, intervenes with research-based strategies and tactics to improve desired behaviors, and utilize scientific methods to demonstrate relations between their interventions and the behavioral improvements (Cooper et al., 2020). People seeking support for working with individuals with ASD should review the literature about ABA on this website.

References