Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke spasticity: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Effects of high-definition tDCS targeting individual motor hotspot with EMG-driven robotic hand training on upper extremity motor function: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Delivering HD-tDCS on individual motor hotspot with optimal electric fields could overcome challenges of stroke heterogeneity, potentially facilitating neural activation and improving motor function for stroke survivors. However, the intervention effect of this personalized HD-tDCS has not been explored on post-stroke motor recovery. In this study, we aim to evaluate whether targeting individual motor hotspot with HD-tDCS followed by EMG-driven robotic hand training could further facilitate the upper extremity motor function for chronic stroke survivors.

METHODS

In this pilot randomized controlled trial, eighteen chronic stroke survivors were randomly allocated into two groups. The HDtDCS-group (n = 8) received personalized HD-tDCS using task-based fMRI to guide the stimulation on individual motor hotspot. The Sham-group (n = 10) received only sham stimulation. Both groups underwent 20 sessions of training, each session began with 20 min of HD-tDCS and was then followed by 60 min of robotic hand training. Clinical scales (Fugl-meyer Upper Extremity scale, FMAUE; Modified Ashworth Scale, MAS), and neuroimaging modalities (fMRI and EEG-EMG) were conducted before, after intervention, and at 6-month follow-up. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the training effect between HDtDCS- and Sham-group.

RESULTS

HDtDCS-group demonstrated significantly better motor improvement than the Sham-group in terms of greater changes of FMAUE scores (F = 6.5, P = 0.004) and MASf (F = 3.6, P = 0.038) immediately and 6 months after the 20-session intervention. The task-based fMRI activation significantly shifted to the ipsilesional motor area in the HDtDCS-group, and this activation pattern increasingly concentrated on the motor hotspot being stimulated 6 months after training within the HDtDCS-group, whereas the increased activation is not sustainable in the Sham-group. The neuroimaging results indicate that neural plastic changes of the HDtDCS-group were guided specifically and sustained as an add-on effect of the stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Stimulating the individual motor hotspot before robotic hand training could further enhance brain activation in motor-related regions that promote better motor recovery for chronic stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT05638464).

Effects and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of randomized clinical trials

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers a direct current to the brain, emerged as a non-invasive potential therapeutic in treating a range of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, a comprehensive quantitative evidence synthesis on the effects of tDCS on a broad range of mental illnesses is lacking. Here, we systematically assess the certainty of the effects and safety of tDCS on several health outcomes using an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The methodological quality of each included original meta-analysis was assessed by the A Measurement Tool for Assessing Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and the certainty of the evidence for each effect was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We followed an a priori protocol (PROSPERO CRD42023458700). We identified 15 meta-analyses of RCTs (AMSTAR 2; high 3, moderate 3, and low 9) that included 282 original articles, covering 22 unique health endpoints across 22 countries and six continents. From meta-analyses of RCTs supported by very low to high certainty of evidence, it was found that tDCS improved symptoms related to post-stroke, including post-stroke depression scale score (equivalent standardized mean difference [eSMD], 1.61 [95% confidence level, 0.72-2.50]; GRADE=moderate), activities of daily living independence (7.04 [3.41-10.67]; GRADE=high), motor recovery of upper and lower extremity (upper extremity: 0.15 [0.06-0.24], GRADE=high; lower extremity: 0.10 [0.03-0.16], GRADE=high), swallowing performance (GRADE=low), and spasticity (GRADE=moderate). In addition, tDCS had treatment effects on symptoms of several neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (0.81 [0.44-1.18]; GRADE=high), pain in fibromyalgia (GRADE=low), disease of consciousness (GRADE=low), insight score (GRADE=moderate) and working memory (0.34 [0.01-0.67]; GRADE=high) in schizophrenia, migraine-related pain (-1.52 [-2.91 to -0.13]; GRADE=high), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (reduction in overall symptom severity: 0.24 [0.04-0.45], GRADE=low; reduction in inattention: 0.56 [0.02-1.11], GRADE=low; reduction in impulsivity: 0.28 [0.04-0.51], GRADE=low), depression (GRADE=low), cerebellar ataxia (GRADE=low), and pain (GRADE=very low). Importantly, tDCS induced an increased number of reported cases of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania (0.88 [0.62-1.13]; GRADE=moderate). We found varied levels of evidence for the effects of tDCS with multiple neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, from very low to high certainty of evidence. tDCS was effective for people with stroke, obsessive-compulsive disorder, fibromyalgia, disease of consciousness, schizophrenia, migraine, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, cerebellar ataxia, and pain. Therefore, these findings suggest the benefit of tDCS for several neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders; however, further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanism and optimize its therapeutic potential.

Comparative Efficacy of Neuromodulation Technologies for Overactive Bladder in Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative efficacy of neuromodulation technologies for overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome in adults.

DATA SOURCES

A computerized search was conducted of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, CNKI, Wan Fang Data, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to April 21, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

The search selected clinical trials with random allocation to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS), vaginal electrical stimulation (VES), sacral neuromodulation (SNM), parasacral stimulation (PS), pudendal neuromodulation, or placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

The main outcomes were the voiding diary, OAB-related quality of life, and positive response rate. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the risk of bias of each included study, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to evaluate the overall evidence quality of key outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The study included 21 randomized controlled trials involving 1433 participants, and all trials were used for the meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, five of six neuromodulation technologies, including PTNS, TTNS, VES, SNM, and PS, were related to higher efficacy than the placebo. Ranking probability showed that SNM was the most efficacious therapy for improving OAB-related quality of life, urinary episodes, and urinary frequency. For urgency incontinence episodes and the number of pads, PTNS and TTNS were the most efficacious modalities, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neuromodulation technologies, including PTNS, TTNS, VES, SNM, and PS, may be effective and safe solutions for OAB syndrome in adults. Moreover, SNM is the most efficacious regimen for OAB-related quality of life, urinary episodes, and urinary frequency. PTNS and TTNS are the most efficacious modalities for reducing urgency incontinence episodes and the number of pads, respectively. Future studies should pay more attention to the quality of study design and report, patients who may benefit the most from neuromodulation, and the long-term effect, cost-effectiveness, and satisfaction of neuromodulation.

Chronic Functional Adaptations Induced by the Application of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Exercise Programs: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The present systematic review aimed to determine the chronic effects of the combination of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and exercise on motor function and performance outcomes. We performed a systematic literature review in the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science. Only randomized control trials that measured the chronic effect of combining exercise (comprising gross motor tasks) with tDCS during at least five sessions and measured any type of motor function or performance outcome were included. A total of 22 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Only outcomes related to motor function or performance were collected. Studies were divided into three groups: (a) healthy population (n = 4), (b) neurological disorder population (n = 14), and (c) musculoskeletal disorder population (n = 4). The studies exhibited considerable variability in terms of tDCS protocols, exercise programs, and outcome measures. Chronic use of tDCS in combination with strength training does not enhance motor function in healthy adults. In neurological disorders, the results suggest no additive effect if the exercise program includes the movements pretending to be improved (i.e., tested). However, although evidence is scarce, tDCS may enhance exercise-induced adaptations in musculoskeletal conditions characterized by pain as a limiting factor of motor function.

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Spasticity is a complex and often disabling symptom for patients with upper motor neuron syndromes. Although spasticity arises from neurological disease, it often cascades into muscle and soft tissue changes, which may exacerbate symptoms and further hamper function. Effective management therefore hinges on early recognition and treatment. To this end, the definition of spasticity has expanded over time to more accurately reflect the spectrum of symptoms experienced by persons with this disorder. Once identified, clinical and research quantitative assessments of spasticity are hindered by the uniqueness of presentations both for individuals and for specific neurological diagnoses. Objective measures in isolation often fail to reflect the complex functional impact of spasticity. Multiple tools exist to quantitatively or qualitatively assess the severity of spasticity, including clinician and patient-reported measures as well as electrodiagnostic, mechanical, and ultrasound measures. A combination of objective and patient-reported outcomes is likely required to better reflect the burden of spasticity symptoms in an individual. Therapeutic options exist for the treatment of spasticity along a broad spectrum from nonpharmacologic to interventional procedures. Treatment strategies may include exercise, physical agent modalities, oral medications, injections, pumps, and surgery. Optimal spasticity management most often requires a multimodal approach, combining pharmacological management with interventions that match the functional needs, goals, and preferences of the patient. Physicians and other healthcare providers who manage spasticity must be familiarized with the full array of spasticity interventions and must frequently reassess results of treatment to ensure the patient's goals of treatment are met.

Efficacy and safety of whole-body vibration therapy for post-stroke spasticity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

One of the main objectives of stroke rehabilitation is to alleviate post-stroke spasticity. Over the recent years, many studies have explored the potential benefits of whole-body vibration (WBV) treatment for post-stroke spasticity, but it is still controversial.

Objective

The current study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of WBV for post-stroke spasticity and determine the appropriate application situation.

Methods

From their establishment until August 2022, the following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published in either English or Chinese were taken into consideration. We independently filtered the research, gathered the data from the studies, and evaluated the research quality (Cochrane RoB tool) and the overall evidence quality (GRADE). Rev Man 5.4 software was utilized to conduct statistical analysis.

Results

In this analysis, 11 RCTs with 475 patients that reported on the effectiveness of WBV therapy for post-stroke spasticity were taken into account. Compared to the control groups, the results revealed that WBV combined with conventional rehabilitation at a vibration frequency lower than 20 Hz (SMD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.98 to -0.19, P = 0.004) was more effective in relieving upper (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.04 to 0.03, P = 0.03) and lower limb spasticity (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.01, P = 0.04); similarly, it was superior for patients aged under 60 years (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.17, P = 0.0008) with acute and subacute stroke (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.09, P = 0.01). The valid vibration for reducing spasticity was found to last for 10 min (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.07, P = 0.02). None of the included studies revealed any serious adverse impact.

Conclusion

Moderate-quality evidence demonstrated when WBV was used as an adjuvant, vibration <20 Hz for 10 min was effective and secure in treating upper and lower limb spasticity in patients with acute and subacute stroke under the age of 60 years.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022293951.

Do patients with and survivors of COVID-19 benefit from telerehabilitation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly impacts physical, psychological, and social functioning and reduces quality of life, which may persist for at least 6 months. Given the fact that COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease and therefore healthcare facilities may be sources of contagion, new methods avoiding face-to-face contact between healthcare workers and patients are urgently needed. Telerehabilitation is the provision of rehabilitation services to patients at a distance via information and communication technologies. However, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of telerehabilitation for COVID-19 is still lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of telerehabilitation for patients with and survivors of COVID-19.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline (via PubMed), PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1st, 2020 to April 30th, 2022 for randomized controlled trials published in English, which aimed to evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation vs. face-to-face rehabilitation, usual care, or no treatment for COVID-19. Methodological quality and overall evidence quality of the included studies were assessed. The statistical reliability of the data was quantified using the trial sequential analysis.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials with eight comparisons were included and all of them were used for meta-analysis. The meta-analyses of absolute values showed the superiority of telerehabilitation over no treatment or usual care for dyspnea (Borg scale: mean difference = -1.88, -2.37 to -1.39; Multidimensional dyspnea-12: mean difference = -3.70, -5.93 to -1.48), limb muscle strength (mean difference = 3.29; 2.12 to 4.47), ambulation capacity (standardized mean difference = 0.88; 0.62 to 1.14), and depression (mean difference = -5.68; -8.62 to -2.74). Significant improvement in these variables persisted in the meta-analyses of change scores. No significant difference was found in anxiety and quality of life. No severe adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.

Conclusions

Moderate- to very low-quality evidence demonstrates that telerehabilitation may be an effective and safe solution for patients with and survivors of COVID-19 in dyspnea, lower limb muscle strength, ambulation capacity, and depression. Further well-designed studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects, cost-effectiveness, and satisfaction in larger samples.

Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Post-Stroke Spasticity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In recent years, the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for the therapeutic effect of post-stroke spasticity has been explored. There are various NIBS methods depending on the stimulation modality, site and parameters. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of NIBS on spasticity in patients after stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PUBMED (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2021. Two independent researchers screened relevant articles and extracted data. This meta-analysis included 14 articles, and all included articles included 18 RCT datasets. The results showed that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (MD = −0.40, [95% CI]: −0.56 to −0.25, p < 0.01) had a significant effect on improving spasticity, in which low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) (MD = −0.51, [95% CI]: −0.78 to −0.24, p < 0.01) and stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere (MD = −0.58, [95% CI]: −0.80 to −0.36, p < 0.01) were beneficial on Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) in patients with post-stroke spasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (MD = −0.65, [95% CI]: −1.07 to −0.22, p < 0.01) also had a significant impact on post-stroke rehabilitation, with anodal stimulation (MD = −0.74, [95% CI]: −1.35 to −0.13, p < 0.05) being more effective in improving spasticity in patients. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence that NIBS reduces spasticity after stroke and may promote recovery in stroke survivors. Future studies investigating the mechanisms of NIBS in addressing spasticity are warranted to further support the clinical application of NIBS in post-stroke spasticity.