Première évaluation d’un programme de remédiation cognitive chez des patients atteints de sclérose en plaques : PROCOG-SEP

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Problems with cognition, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can affect their ability to complete daily activities and can negatively affect quality of life. Over the last few years, there has been considerable growth in the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of memory rehabilitation in MS. To guide clinicians and researchers, this review provides an overview of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for people with MS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation compared to those who received no treatment, or an active control showed better immediate, intermediate, or longer-term outcomes in their: 1. memory functions, 2. other cognitive abilities, and 3. functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL which includes Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (The Whoqol) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, Embase and PubMed (MEDLINE), and the following electronic databases (6 September 2020): CINAHL, LILACS, the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or quasi-RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared with a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS, unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eight review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and manuscript review. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with Cochrane methods. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Outcomes were considered separately for 'immediate' (within the first month after completion of intervention), 'intermediate' (one to six months), and 'longer-term' (more than six months) time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 29 studies during this update, bringing the total to 44 studies, involving 2714 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on using internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias amongst the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. In this abstract, we are only reporting outcomes at the intermediate timepoint (i.e., between one and six months). We found a slight difference between groups for subjective memory (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; 11 studies; 1045 participants; high-quality evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58; 6 studies; 683 participants; high-quality evidence) favoring the memory rehabilitation group. There was a small difference between groups for verbal memory (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 6 studies; 753 participants; low-quality evidence) and information processing (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54; 8 studies; 933 participants; low-quality evidence), favoring the memory rehabilitation group.  We found little to no difference between groups for visual memory (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.50; 6 studies; 751 participants; moderate-quality evidence), working memory (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40; 8 studies; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or activities of daily living (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 4 studies; 400 participants; high-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on some outcomes assessed in this review at intermediate follow-up. The evidence suggests that memory rehabilitation results in between-group differences favoring the memory rehabilitation group at the intermediate time point for subjective memory, verbal memory, information processing, and quality of life outcomes, suggesting that memory rehabilitation is beneficial and meaningful to people with MS. There are differential effects of memory rehabilitation based on the quality of the trials, with studies of high risk of bias inflating (positive) outcomes. Further robust, large-scale, multi-centre RCTs, with better quality reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments (including health economic outcomes) assessed at longer-term time points are still needed to be certain about the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS.

CogniSoft: A Platform for the Automation of Cognitive Assessment and Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis

Cognitive disorders remain a major cause of disability in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). They lead to unemployment, the need for daily assistance, and a poor quality of life. The understanding of the origin, factors, processes, and consequences of cognitive disfunction is key to its prevention, early diagnosis, and rehabilitation. The neuropsychological testing and continuous monitoring of cognitive status as part of the overall evaluation of patients with MS in parallel with clinical and paraclinical examinations are highly recommended. In order to improve health and disease understanding, a close linkage between fundamental, clinical, epidemiological, and socio-economic research is required. The effective sharing of data, standardized data processing, and the linkage of such data with large-scale cohort studies is a prerequisite for the translation of research findings into the clinical setting. In this context, this paper proposes a software platform for the cognitive assessment and rehabilitation of patients with MS called CogniSoft. The platform automates the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) test and diagnostic tests for the evaluation of memory and executive functions based on the nature of Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS), as well as implementing a set of games for cognitive rehabilitation based on BICAMS. The software architecture, core modules, and technologies used for their implementation are presented. Special attention is given to the development of cognitive tests for diagnostics and rehabilitation. Their automation enables better perception, avoids bias as a result of conducting the classic paper tests of various neurophysiologists, provides easy administration, and allows data collection in a uniform manner, which further enables analysis using statistical and machine learning algorithms. The CogniSoft platform is registered as medical software by the Bulgarian Drug Agency and it is currently deployed in the Neurological Clinic of the National Hospital of Cardiology in Sofia, Bulgaria. The first experiments prove the feasibility of the platform, showing that it saves time and financial resources while providing subjectivity in the interpretation of the cognitive test results.

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 14 March 2012, Issue 3). Impairments in cognitive function, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can potentially affect their ability to complete functional activities. There is evidence from single-case or small group studies that memory rehabilitation can be beneficial for people with MS, but findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation showed: 1. better outcomes in their memory functions compared to those given no treatment or receiving a placebo control; and 2. better functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those who received no treatment or a placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (2 June 2015) and the following electronic databases: The NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database (NIHR CRN) (from 2010 to June 2015), The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (2010 to June 2015), British Nursing Index (BNI) (2010 to June 2015), PsycINFO (2011 to June 2015), and CAB Abstracts (2010 to June 2015). Start dates for the electronic databases coincided with the last search for the previous review. We handsearched relevant journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or quasi-randomised trials of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared to a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included.

MAIN RESULTS

We added seven studies during this update, bringing the total to 15 studies, involving 989 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology.We found significant effect of intervention on objective assessments of memory in both the immediate and long-term follow-ups: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.41) and SMD 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.49), respectively. We also found significant effect of intervention for quality of life in the immediate follow-up (SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.41)). These findings showed that the intervention group performed significantly better than the control group. We also found a significant difference for activities of daily living (ADL) in the long-term follow-up (SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.03)), showing that the control groups had significantly less difficulty completing ADLs than the intervention groups. We found no significant effects, either immediate or long-term, on subjective reports of memory problems (SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27) and SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27)); on mood (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.20) and SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.20)); and on immediate follow-up for ADL (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.33)) and in the long term for quality of life (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.36)). We could not complete a sensitivity analysis of intention-to-treat in comparison with per-protocol analysis, due to insufficient information from the included papers. However, a sensitivity analysis of high- versus low-risk studies suggested that while quality of the trials did not affect most outcomes, differences were seen in the objective memory outcomes (both at immediate and long term) and quality of life (immediate) outcome, with studies with higher risk of bias inflating the overall effect size estimates for these outcomes, and the test of overall effect changing from being statistically significant to not significant when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. This suggests that lower-quality studies may have positively influenced the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on memory function, as well as on quality of life. However, the evidence is limited and does not extend to subjective reports of memory functioning or mood. Furthermore, the objective measures used are not ecologically valid measures, and thus potentially limit generalisability of these findings into daily life. Further robust RCTs of high methodological quality and better quality of reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments, are still needed.

A randomized, controlled, single-blind, 6-month pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of MS-Line!: a cognitive rehabilitation programme for patients with multiple sclerosis

Background:

MS-Line! was created to provide an effective treatment for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.

Objective:

To assess the efficacy of MS-Line!.

Methods:

A randomized, controlled, single-blind, 6-month pilot study. Patients were randomly assigned to an experimental group (cognitive rehabilitation with the programme) or to a control group (no cognitive rehabilitation). Randomization was stratified by cognitive impairment level. Cognitive assessment included: selective reminding test, 10/36 spatial recall test (10/36 SPART), symbol digit modalities test, paced auditory serial addition test, word list generation (WLG), FAS test, subtests of WAIS-III, Boston naming test (BNT), and trail making test (TMT).

Results:

Forty-three patients (22 in the experimental group, 21 in the control group) were analyzed. Covariance analysis showed significant differences in 10/36 SPART ( P=0.0002), 10/36 SPART delayed recall ( P=0.0021), WLG ( P=0.0123), LNS ( P=0.0413), BNT ( P=0.0007) and TMT-A ( P=0.010) scores between groups.

Conclusions:

The study showed a significant improvement related to learning and visual memory, executive functions, attention and information processing speed, and naming ability in those patients who received cognitive rehabilitation. The results suggest that MS-Line! is effective in improving cognitive impairment in MS patients.

A new cognitive rehabilitation programme for patients with multiple sclerosis: the ‘MS-line! Project’

Background:

Cognitive rehabilitation is often delayed in multiple sclerosis (MS).

Objective:

To develop a free and specific cognitive rehabilitation programme for MS patients to be used from early stages that does not interfere with daily living activities.

Methods:

MS-line!, cognitive rehabilitation materials consisting of written, manipulative and computer-based materials with difficulty levels developed by a multidisciplinary team.

Results:

Mathematical, problem-solving and word-based exercises were designed. Physical materials included spatial, coordination and reasoning games. Computer-based material included logic and reasoning, working memory and processing speed games.

Conclusions:

Cognitive rehabilitation exercises that are specific for MS patients have been successfully developed.

Neuropsychological rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Neuropsychological rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis' (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11).Cognitive deficits are a common manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS) and have a significant effect on the patient's quality of life. Alleviation of the harmful effects caused by these deficits should be a major goal of MS research and practice. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neuropsychological/cognitive rehabilitation on health-related factors, such as cognitive performance and emotional well-being in patients with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register which, among other sources, contains trials from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro and clinical trials registries (28 May 2013). We contacted authors of the studies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of neuropsychological rehabilitation in MS compared to other interventions or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors individually judged the eligibility of the included studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We combined results quantitatively in meta-analyses according to the intervention type: 1) cognitive training and 2) cognitive training combined with other neuropsychological rehabilitation methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (986 participants; 966 MS participants and 20 healthy controls) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the participants was 44.6 years, mean length of education was 12.3 years and 70% of the participants were women. Most of the participants had a relapsing-remitting course of disease. The mean Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 3.2 and the mean duration of disease was 14.0 years.On the basis of these studies, we found low-level evidence that neuropsychological rehabilitation reduces cognitive symptoms in MS. Cognitive training was found to improve memory span (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.88, P = 0.002) and working memory (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.57, P = 0.006). Cognitive training combined with other neuropsychological rehabilitation methods was found to improve attention (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28, P = 0.03), immediate verbal memory (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.54, P = 0.008) and delayed memory (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.42, P = 0.03). There was no evidence of an effect of neuropsychological rehabilitation on emotional functions.The overall quality, as well as the comparability of the included studies, was relatively low due to methodological limitations and heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures. Although most of the pooled results in the meta-analyses yielded no significant findings, 18 of the 20 studies showed some evidence of positive effects when the studies were individually analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found low-level evidence for positive effects of neuropsychological rehabilitation in MS. The interventions and outcome measures included in the review were heterogeneous, which limited the comparability of the studies. New trials may therefore change the strength and direction of the evidence.

Memory Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Impairments in cognitive function, particularly memory, are common in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and these can potentially affect their ability to complete functional activities. There is evidence from single-case or small group studies that memory rehabilitation can be beneficial for patients with MS but findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for patients with MS who have memory problems, and the effect of such interventions on functional abilities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's Specialised Trials Register (last searched February 2011), and the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, latest issue), NIHR Clinical Research Network database, MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011), EMBASE (1980 to February 2011), CINAHL (1982 to April 2010), PsycINFO (1980 to February 2011), AMED (1985 to April 2010), British Nursing Index (1985 to April 2010) and CAB Abstracts (1973 to April 2010). We handsearched relevant journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for patients with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared to a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and confirmed through group discussion. Studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS were excluded unless a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results could be identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four reviewers were involved in study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Investigators of primary studies were contacted for further information where required. Data analysis and synthesis were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. A 'best evidence' synthesis was performed based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies, involving 521 participants, were included. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low; three of the studies were evaluated to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. Meta-analysis showed no significant effects of memory rehabilitation on memory function or functional abilities immediately or long-term. No significant effect of intervention was found, either immediately or long-term, on subjective reports of memory problems [Standard mean difference (SMD)  0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.21 to 0.34) and SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.31)] respectively; on objective memory [SMD 0.24 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.49) and SMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.47)]; on mood [SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.17) and SMD 0.13 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.36)]; and on Quality of Life [SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.39) and SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.17)]. On Activities of Daily Living, no immediate treatment effect was observed [SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.33)], but on long-term follow up the intervention group performed significantly worse than the control group [SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.03)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on memory function or functional abilities in patients with MS. However, this conclusion has been arrived because of the limited quality of some of the primary studies reviewed in this area. Further robust, RCTs of higher methodological quality and better quality of reporting are needed.

[Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature]

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive impairment is now well-known in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, few rehabilitation interventions are proposed or really efficient.

OBJECTIVES

To present a review of cognitive rehabilitation intervention research conducted in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), regarding different findings about episodic memory, working memory, attention and executive function disorders in MS.

DATA SOURCES

A search of Medline (yield 20 papers) and of PsychInfo (yield 1 article), using combinations of the following terms: cognitive rehabilitation, multiple sclerosis, cognitive therapy, neuropsychological rehabilitation, in the title or in the abstract, from 1960 to March 2010, excluding animal studies.

RESULTS

Episodic memory rehabilitation studies appear to be promising. Programs on working memory, attention and executive functions are in the very early phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Results are encouraging and allow specific recommendations for future research about: (1) inclusion criteria, often not defined, (2) a specific baseline adapted to the program of rehabilitation, (3) a control measure regarding program efficiency and (4) a role for the psychologist (presence and advice during the program).

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for adults with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MD) is an important component of symptomatic and supportive treatment for Multiple sclerosis (MS), but evidence base for its effectiveness is yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of organized MD rehabilitation in adults with MS. To explore rehabilitation approaches that are effective in different settings and the outcomes that are affected.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The sources used included: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials "CENTRAL", MEDLINE (1966- 2005), CINAHL (1982- 2005), PEDro (1990- 2005), EMBASE (1988- 2005), the Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field trials Register and the National Health Service National Research Register (NRR).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared MD rehabilitation with routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention; or trials comparing interventions in different settings or at different levels of intensity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers selected trials and rated their methodological quality independently. A 'best evidence' synthesis based on methodological quality was performed. Trials were grouped in terms of setting and type of rehabilitation and duration of patient follow up.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials (7 RCTs; 1 CCT) (747 participants and 73 caregivers) were identified. Seven RCTs scored well and one CCT scored poorly on the methodological quality assessment. There was 'strong evidence' that despite no change in the level of impairment, inpatient MD rehabilitation can produce short-term gains at the levels of activity (disability) and participation for patients with MS. For outpatient and home-based rehabilitation programmes there was 'limited evidence' for short-term improvements in symptoms and disability with high intensity programmes, which translated into improvement in participation and quality of life. For low intensity programmes conducted over a longer period there was strong evidence for longer-term gains in quality of life; and also limited evidence for benefits to carers. Although some studies reported potential for cost-savings, there is no convincing evidence regarding the long-term cost-effectiveness of these programmes. It was not possible to suggest best 'dose' of therapy or supremacy of one therapy over another. This review highlights the limitations of RCTs in rehabilitation settings and need for better designed randomized and multiple centre trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MD rehabilitation programmes do not change the level of impairment, but can improve the experience of people with MS in terms of activity and participation. Regular evaluation and assessment of these persons for rehabilitation is recommended. Further research into appropriate outcome measures, optimal intensity, frequency, cost and effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy over a longer time period is needed. Future research in rehabilitation should focus on improving methodological and scientific rigour of clinical trials.