Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Cerebellar Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.

CONCLUSION

Non-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.

Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Hereditary Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques as a viable treatment option for cerebellar ataxia. However, there is a notable dearth of research investigating the efficacy of NIBS specifically for hereditary ataxia (HA), a distinct subgroup within the broader category of cerebellar ataxia. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis in order to assess the efficacy of various NIBS methods for the treatment of HA. A thorough review of the literature was conducted, encompassing both English and Chinese articles, across eight electrical databases. The focus was on original articles investigating the therapeutic effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation for hereditary ataxia, with a publication date prior to March 2023. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed specifically on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that fulfilled the eligibility criteria, taking into account the various modalities of non-invasive brain stimulation. A meta-analysis was conducted, comprising five RCTs, which utilized the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) as the outcome measure to evaluate the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The findings revealed a statistically significant mean decrease of 1.77 in the total SARA score following repetitive TMS (rTMS) (p=0.006). Subgroup analysis based on frequency demonstrated a mean decrease of 1.61 in the total SARA score after high-frequency rTMS (p=0.05), while no improvement effects were observed after low-frequency rTMS (p=0.48). Another meta-analysis was performed on three studies, utilizing ICARS scores, to assess the impact of rTMS. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in pooled ICARS scores between the rTMS group and the sham group (MD=0.51, 95%CI: -5.38 to 6.39; p=0.87). These findings align with the pooled results of two studies that evaluated alterations in post-intervention BBS scores (MD=0.74, 95%CI: -5.48 to 6.95; p=0.82). Despite the limited number of studies available, this systematic review and meta-analysis have revealed promising potential benefits of rTMS for hereditary ataxia. However, it is strongly recommended that further high-quality investigations be conducted in this area. Furthermore, the significance of standardized protocols for NIBS in future studies was also emphasized.

The Neurorehabilitation of Neurological Movement Disorders Requires Rigorous and Sustained Research

Movement disorders that stem from neurological conditions such as stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD) can significantly impair a person's activities of daily living (ADL) [...].

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, can manage cerebellar ataxia (CA) by suppressing cerebral cortical excitability. Hence, this study aimed to summarize the efficacy and safety of rTMS for CA patients by meta-analysis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies published till 20 May 2023. Weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect of rTMS treatment. Additionally, the quality of the included studies and the risk of bias were evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

Results

Overall, eight studies involving 278 CA patients were included in this meta-analysis. rTMS could significantly improve the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) (MD: -2.00; 95% CI: -3.97 to -0.02, p = 0.05), International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) (MD: -3.96; 95% CI: -5.51 to -2.40, p < 0.00001), Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG) (MD: -1.54; 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.84, p < 0.0001), 10-m walk test (10 MWT) (MD10-m steps: -2.44; 95% CI: -4.14 to -0.73, p = 0.005), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (MD: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.15-4.03, p = 0.0004) as compared to sham stimulation. Active rTMS was not significantly different from sham rTMS in changing the duration (MD10-m time: -1.29; 95% CI: -7.98 to 5.41, p = 0.71). No severe adverse events were observed in both sham stimulation and active rTMS groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis provides limited evidence that rTMS may be beneficial in treating CA patients. However, these findings should be treated with caution due to the limitations of the smaller sample size and the inconsistent approach and target of rTMS treatment. Therefore, more large-scale RCTs are required to further validate our analytical findings.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=295726, identifier: CRD42022295726.

Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation for degenerative cerebellar ataxia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To date, the medical and rehabilitation needs of people with degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) are not fully met because no curative treatment has yet been established. Movement disorders such as cerebellar ataxia and balance and gait disturbance are common symptoms of DCA. Recently, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation, have been reported as possible intervention methods to improve cerebellar ataxia. However, evidence of the effects of NIBS on cerebellar ataxia, gait ability, and activity of daily living is insufficient. This study will aim to systematically evaluate the clinical effects of NIBS on patients with DCA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will include randomised controlled trials to assess the effects of NIBS on patients with DCA. The primary clinical outcome will be cerebellar ataxia, as measured by the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale. The secondary outcomes will include gait speed, functional ambulatory capacity and functional independence measure, as well as any other reported outcomes that the reviewer considers important. The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and PEDro. We will assess the strength of the evidence included in the studies and estimate the effects of NIBS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Because of the nature of systematic reviews, no ethical issues are anticipated. This systematic review will provide evidence on the effects of NIBS in patients with DCA. The findings of this review are expected to contribute to clinical decision-making towards selecting NIBS techniques for treatment and generating new clinical questions to be addressed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023379192.