Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Enhance Post-Stroke Recovery

Brain plasticity after stroke remains poorly understood. Patients may improve spontaneously within the first 3 months and then more slowly in the coming year. The first day, decreased edema and reperfusion of the ischemic penumbra may possibly account for these phenomena, but the improvement during the next weeks suggests plasticity phenomena and cortical reorganization of the brain ischemic areas and of more remote areas. Indeed, the injured ischemic motor cortex has a reduced cortical excitability at the acute phase and a suspension of the topographic representation of affected muscles, whereas the contralateral motor cortex has an increased excitability and an enlarged somatomotor representation; furthermore, contralateral cortex exerts a transcallosal interhemispheric inhibition on the ischemic cortex. This results from the imbalance of the physiological reciprocal interhemispheric inhibition of each hemisphere on the other, contributing to worsening of neurological deficit. Cortical excitability is measurable through transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and prognosis has been established according to the presence of motor evoked potentials (MEP) at the acute phase of stroke, which is predictive of better recovery. Conversely, the lack of response to early stimulation is associated with a poor functional outcome. Non-invasive stimulation techniques such as repetitive TMS (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have the potential to modulate brain cortical excitability with long lasting effects. In the setting of cerebrovascular disease, around 1000 stroke subjects have been included in placebo-controlled trials so far, most often with an objective of promoting motor recovery of the upper limb. High frequency repetitive stimulation (>3 Hz) rTMS, aiming to increase excitability of the ischemic cortex, or low frequency repetitive stimulation (≤1 Hz), aiming to reduce excitability of the contralateral homonymous cortex, or combined therapies, have shown various effects on the functional disability score and neurological scales of treated patients and on the duration of the treatment. We review here the patients’ characteristics and parameters of stimulation that could predict a good response, as well as safety issues. At last, we review what we have learnt from experimental studies and discuss potential directions to conduct future studies.

Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke

BACKGROUND

Improving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To carry out a Cochrane overview by synthesising systematic reviews of interventions provided to improve upper limb function after stroke.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; the Database of Reviews of Effects; and PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews) (June 2013). We also contacted review authors in an effort to identify further relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with stroke comparing upper limb interventions with no treatment, usual care or alternative treatments. Our primary outcome of interest was upper limb function; secondary outcomes included motor impairment and performance of activities of daily living. When we identified overlapping reviews, we systematically identified the most up-to-date and comprehensive review and excluded reviews that overlapped with this.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two overview authors independently applied the selection criteria, excluding reviews that were superseded by more up-to-date reviews including the same (or similar) studies. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of reviews (using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool) and extracted data. Quality of evidence within each comparison in each review was determined using objective criteria (based on numbers of participants, risk of bias, heterogeneity and review quality) to apply GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) levels of evidence. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We systematically tabulated the effects of interventions and used quality of evidence to determine implications for clinical practice and to make recommendations for future research.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified 1840 records, from which we included 40 completed reviews (19 Cochrane; 21 non-Cochrane), covering 18 individual interventions and dose and setting of interventions. The 40 reviews contain 503 studies (18,078 participants). We extracted pooled data from 31 reviews related to 127 comparisons. We judged the quality of evidence to be high for 1/127 comparisons (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrating no benefit for outcomes of activities of daily living (ADLs)); moderate for 49/127 comparisons (covering seven individual interventions) and low or very low for 77/127 comparisons.Moderate-quality evidence showed a beneficial effect of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), mental practice, mirror therapy, interventions for sensory impairment, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice, suggesting that these may be effective interventions; moderate-quality evidence also indicated that unilateral arm training may be more effective than bilateral arm training. Information was insufficient to reveal the relative effectiveness of different interventions.Moderate-quality evidence from subgroup analyses comparing greater and lesser doses of mental practice, repetitive task training and virtual reality demonstrates a beneficial effect for the group given the greater dose, although not for the group given the smaller dose; however tests for subgroup differences do not suggest a statistically significant difference between these groups. Future research related to dose is essential.Specific recommendations for future research are derived from current evidence. These recommendations include but are not limited to adequately powered, high-quality RCTs to confirm the benefit of CIMT, mental practice, mirror therapy, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice; high-quality RCTs to explore the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), tDCS, hands-on therapy, music therapy, pharmacological interventions and interventions for sensory impairment; and up-to-date reviews related to biofeedback, Bobath therapy, electrical stimulation, reach-to-grasp exercise, repetitive task training, strength training and stretching and positioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Large numbers of overlapping reviews related to interventions to improve upper limb function following stroke have been identified, and this overview serves to signpost clinicians and policy makers toward relevant systematic reviews to support clinical decisions, providing one accessible, comprehensive document, which should support clinicians and policy makers in clinical decision making for stroke rehabilitation.Currently, no high-quality evidence can be found for any interventions that are currently used as part of routine practice, and evidence is insufficient to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness of interventions. Effective collaboration is urgently needed to support large, robust RCTs of interventions currently used routinely within clinical practice. Evidence related to dose of interventions is particularly needed, as this information has widespread clinical and research implications.

The ineffective role of cathodal tDCS in enhancing the functional motor outcomes in early phase of stroke rehabilitation: an experimental trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive technique that could improve the rehabilitation outcomes in stroke, eliciting neuroplastic mechanisms. At the same time conflicting results have been reported in subacute phase of stroke, when neuroplasticity is crucial. The aim of this double-blind, randomized, and sham-controlled study was to determine whether a treatment with cathodal tDCS before the rehabilitative training might augment the final outcomes (upper limb function, hand dexterity and manual force, locomotion, and activities of daily living) in respect of a traditional rehabilitation for a sample of patients affected by ischemic stroke in the subacute phase. An experimental group (cathodal tDCS plus rehabilitation) and a control group (sham tDCS plus rehabilitation) were assessed at the beginning of the protocol, after 10 days of stimulation, after 30 days from ending of stimulation, and at the end of inpatient rehabilitation. Both groups showed significant improvements for all the assessed domains during the rehabilitation, except for the manual force, while no significant differences were demonstrated between groups. These results seem to indicate that the cathodal tDCS, provided in an early phase of stroke, does not lead to a functional improvement. To depict a more comprehensive scenario, further studies are needed.

What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy (PT) is one of the key disciplines in interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the evidence for stroke rehabilitation interventions in the domain of PT.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PT in stroke rehabilitation were retrieved through a systematic search. Outcomes were classified according to the ICF. RCTs with a low risk of bias were quantitatively analyzed. Differences between phases poststroke were explored in subgroup analyses. A best evidence synthesis was performed for neurological treatment approaches. The search yielded 467 RCTs (N = 25373; median PEDro score 6 [IQR 5-7]), identifying 53 interventions. No adverse events were reported. Strong evidence was found for significant positive effects of 13 interventions related to gait, 11 interventions related to arm-hand activities, 1 intervention for ADL, and 3 interventions for physical fitness. Summary Effect Sizes (SESs) ranged from 0.17 (95%CI 0.03-0.70; I(2) = 0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84-4.11; I(2) = 77%) for training of sitting balance. There is strong evidence that a higher dose of practice is better, with SESs ranging from 0.21 (95%CI 0.02-0.39; I(2) = 6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61 (95%CI 0.41-0.82; I(2) = 41%) for muscle strength of the paretic leg. Subgroup analyses yielded significant differences with respect to timing poststroke for 10 interventions. Neurological treatment approaches to training of body functions and activities showed equal or unfavorable effects when compared to other training interventions. Main limitations of the present review are not using individual patient data for meta-analyses and absence of correction for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence for PT interventions favoring intensive high repetitive task-oriented and task-specific training in all phases poststroke. Effects are mostly restricted to the actually trained functions and activities. Suggestions for prioritizing PT stroke research are given.