← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

M1-iTBS in Mid-Stage PD

Bilateral intermittent theta burst stimulation over the primary motor cortex improves motor and affective symptoms via thalamic network reintegration in mid-stage Parkinson's disease

Year of Publication: 2026

Authors: Macías-García P et al.

Journal: Neurotherapeutics

Citation: Neurotherapeutics. 2026 Apr 28;e00911. DOI:10.1016/j.neurot.2026.e00911

Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurot.2026.e00911

Bottom Line

Bilateral M1-iTBS produced a 30.7% reduction in MDS-UPDRS Part III at 2 weeks (vs 14.3% sham, p=0.036) plus large improvements in depression (-47.6%) and anxiety (-37.9%), accompanied by increased cerebello-thalamo-cortical connectivity in responders.

Major Points

  • First crossover, double-blind, sham-controlled RCT of 5-session M1-iTBS in mid-stage PD showing combined motor and affective benefit
  • Maximal motor improvement at 2 weeks: 8.90 ± 6.11 points on MDS-UPDRS Part III (30.7%) vs 2.87 ± 5.33 (14.3%) with sham; condition×time interaction p=0.014
  • 11/15 patients met responder criteria with 37.2% MDS-UPDRS-III improvement; bradykinesia was the most responsive subdomain
  • HDRS fell 47.6% (p=0.002) and HARS 37.9% (p=0.007) — supports M1-iTBS as a dual motor/affective intervention
  • Resting-state fMRI implicates cerebello-thalamo-cortical reintegration as a candidate mechanism (medial geniculate-precuneus FC inversely correlated with bradykinesia, r=-0.718)

Design

Study Type: Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled crossover trial

Randomization: 1

Blinding: Double-blind (patients and evaluators blinded; only randomization investigator unblinded; AirFilm SHAM coil)

Enrollment Period: Ethical approval April 1, 2020 (enrollment dates not reported)

Follow-up Duration: 1 month after final session (post-1 immediate, post-2 1 wk, post-3 2 wk, post-4 1 mo); rs-fMRI on day 8; ≥3-month washout between phases

Centers: 1

Countries: Spain

Sample Size: 15

Analysis: rmANOVA with Bonferroni correction; carryover effects assessed and not detected


Inclusion Criteria

  • PD diagnosis per UK PD Society Brain Bank criteria
  • Disease duration ≥5 years
  • Hoehn & Yahr stage II-III in ON medication state
  • Clinical and therapeutic stability for ≥2 months
  • Age 45-75 years
  • Naïve to TMS
  • Provided written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

  • Important systemic disease
  • Moderate or severe cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental Parkinson ≤24)
  • Incapacitating psychiatric conditions, dystonia, or dyskinesia
  • Atypical parkinsonism
  • Other neurological comorbidities, cranioencephalic trauma, or epilepsy
  • Any other contraindication to TMS neurostimulation

Baseline Characteristics

CharacteristicActive (M1-iTBS)Sham
Mean Age58.1 ± 8.5 years (whole cohort)
Sex - Male8/15 (53.3%)
Disease Duration8.7 ± 3.7 years
H&Y stage (ON medication)II-III
NotesCrossover - same 15 patients received both real and sham; 24 initially recruited, 9 excluded for med adjustment or noncompletion
Same cohortCrossover design — same 15 patients
Sham CoilAirFilm SHAM (identical sound and sensation, no electric field)

Arms

FieldReal M1-iTBSControl
InterventionBilateral M1-iTBS at 80% AMT, 5 consecutive daily sessionsAirFilm sham coil applied to bilateral M1, 5 consecutive daily sessions
Duration5 days + 1-month assessment5 days + 1-month assessment

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Change in MDS-UPDRS Part III (motor) score from baseline across 4 follow-up timepoints (immediate, 1 wk, 2 wk, 1 mo)PrimaryReal iTBS - peak at 2 wk: −8.90 ± 6.11 points (30.7% reduction) · Sham - peak at 2 wk: −2.87 ± 5.33 points (14.3% reduction) · Responders (n=11) on real iTBS: −17.70 ± 7.82 points (37.18%) · Effect size: Cohen's d = 0.59; partial η² = 0.27 · Statistics: condition × time interaction F=5.235, p=0.014; main effect of time F=14.883, p≤0.001; between-condition p=0.036
MDS-UPDRS-III Bradykinesia subdomainSecondary0.048 between conditions at post-3 (interaction F=3.809, p=0.008 — survived Bonferroni)
MDS-UPDRS-III Tremor subdomainSecondaryMain effect p=0.008; interaction p=0.031 (NS after Bonferroni)
MDS-UPDRS-III Rigidity subdomainSecondaryMain effect F=9.494, p≤0.001
MDS-UPDRS-III Axial subdomainSecondaryMain effect F=4.261, p=0.004
MDS-UPDRS Part II (ADL)SecondaryNS
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS)SecondaryMain effect F=10.499, p=0.006; t=3.696, p=0.002
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS)SecondaryMain effect F=13.180, p=0.003; t=3.172, p=0.007
rs-FC right lateral posterior thalamus → right cerebellum/fusiform/ITGSecondaryt=11.15, pFDRc=0.038
rs-FC right medial geniculate thalamus → bilateral precuneusSecondaryt=7.40, pFDRc=0.017
PPQ sleep subscaleSecondaryF=5.527, p=0.034 (did NOT survive Bonferroni α/4=0.0125)
OverallAdverseNot systematically reported in the article
Serious AEAdverseNone described
TolerabilityAdverseAll 15 completers tolerated 5 consecutive daily sessions at 80% AMT

Subgroup Analysis

Responder subgroup analysis (n=11 motor, n=7 HDRS, n=6 HARS) showed larger effects; sham responder subgroup too small for valid comparison


Criticisms

  • Small sample (n=15 from 24 recruited) limits generalizability and precision; post-hoc power ~60%
  • Single-center study (Puerta del Mar Hospital, Cádiz) restricts external validity
  • Excluded patients with cognitive impairment — a clinically meaningful subgroup
  • Mood outcomes vulnerable to expectation effects (sham also improved mood scores)
  • Assessments performed only in ON-medication state
  • Short follow-up (1 month) limits durability assessment
  • Exploratory rs-fMRI ROI analyses lacked across-ROI correction — hypothesis-generating only
  • Adverse events not systematically reported
  • Imbalanced responder subgroup analyses (only real-iTBS responders analyzed due to limited sham responders)

Funding

Spanish MICIU grants PID2021-124427OB-I00 and CNS2023-143743 (ERDF/EU and NextGen EU/PRTR); Andalusian ProyExcel-01041; INiBICA, UCA, and Juan de la Cierva fellowships (FJC2021-046990-I)

Based on: M1-iTBS in Mid-Stage PD (Neurotherapeutics, 2026)

Authors: Macías-García P et al.

Citation: Neurotherapeutics. 2026 Apr 28;e00911. DOI:10.1016/j.neurot.2026.e00911

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.