Transcranial direct current stimulation and aphasia: the case of mr. C

Non-invasive brain stimulation in the treatment of post-stroke aphasia: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment that commonly results from stroke. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) might accelerate aphasia recovery trajectories and has seen mounting popularity in recent aphasia rehabilitation research. The present review aimed to: (1) summarise all existing literature on NIBS as a post-stroke aphasia treatment; and (2) provide recommendations for future NIBS-aphasia research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases for published and grey literature were searched using scoping review methodology. 278 journal articles, conference abstracts/posters, and books, and 38 items of grey literature, were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis revealed that ipsilesional anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and contralesional 1-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation were the most widely used forms of NIBS, while qualitative analysis identified four key themes including: the roles of the hemispheres in aphasia recovery and their relationship with NIBS; heterogeneity of individuals but homogeneity of subpopulations; individualisation of stimulation parameters; and much remains under-explored in the NIBS-aphasia literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these results highlighted systemic challenges across the field such as small sample sizes, inter-individual variability, lack of protocol optimisation/standardisation, and inadequate focus on aphasiology. Four key recommendations are outlined herein to guide future research and refine NIBS methods for post-stroke aphasia treatment.

Functional neuroimaging and behavioral correlates of multisite tDCS as an add-on to language training in a person with post-stroke non-fluent aphasia: a year-long case study

Mary, who experienced non-fluent aphasia as a result of an ischemic stroke, received 10 years of personalized language training (LT), resulting in transient enhancements in speech and comprehension. To enhance these effects, multisite transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) was added to her LT regimen for 15 sessions. Assessment using the Reliable Change Index showed that this combination improved her left inferior frontal connectivity and speech production for two months and significantly improved comprehension after one month. The results indicate that using multisite transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve the effectiveness of language therapy (LT) for individuals with non-fluent aphasia.

Does Right-Hemispheric Anodal tDCS Enhance the Impact of Script Training in Chronic Aphasia? A Single-Subject Experimental Study

Background: Script training is an aphasia treatment approach that has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on communication of individuals with aphasia; however, it is time intensive as a therapeutic modality. To augment therapy-induced neuroplasticity, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be implemented. tDCS has been paired with other speech-language treatments, however, has not been investigated with script training.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine if tDCS improves communication proficiency when paired with script training, compared to script training alone.

Methods and Procedures: A single-subject experimental design was implemented with a participant with non-fluent aphasia, using two scripts across treatment conditions: script training with sham-tDCS, and script training with anodal-tDCS. Treatment sessions were 75 min long, administered three times weekly. Anodal tDCS was implemented for 20 min with a current of 1.5 mA over the right inferior frontal gyrus.

Results: Large effect sizes were obtained on script mastery for both stimulation conditions (anodal d₂ = 9.94; sham d₂ = 11.93). tDCS did not improve script accuracy, however, there was a significant improvement in the rate of change of script pace relative to baseline (3.99 seconds/day, p < 0.001) in the anodal tDCS condition.

Conclusion: Despite a null tDCS result on accuracy, the script training protocol increased script performance to a near-fluent level of communication. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that tDCS may alter the rate of script acquisition, however, further research to corroborate this finding is required. Implications for future studies are discussed.

Extended fMRI-Guided Anodal and Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting Perilesional Areas in Post-Stroke Aphasia: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may enhance speech and language treatment (SLT) for stroke survivors with aphasia; however, to date, there is no standard protocol for the application of tDCS in post-stroke aphasia. We explored the safety and efficacy of fMRI-guided tDCS on functional language and cortical activity when delivered to the lesioned left hemisphere concurrently with SLT across an extended, six-week treatment period. Twelve persons with chronic, nonfluent aphasia following a single left-hemisphere stroke participated in the three-arm (anodal vs. cathodal vs. sham) single-blind, parallel, pilot trial. No serious adverse events occurred during 30 treatment sessions or in the following six weeks. All groups demonstrated functional language gains following intensive treatment; however, active tDCS resulted in greater gains in standardized, probe, and caregiver-reported measures of functional language than sham. Evidence declaring one polarity as superior for inducing language recovery was mixed. However, cathodal stimulation to the lesioned left hemisphere, expected to have a down-regulating effect, resulted in increased areas of cortical activation across both hemispheres, and specifically perilesionally. Generalization of these preliminary findings is limited; however, results are nevertheless compelling that tDCS combined with SLT can be safely applied across extended durations, with the potential to enhance functional language and cortical activation for persons with aphasia.

Implementation Cost Analysis of an Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program

OBJECTIVE

To identify and measure the costs of implementing an intensive comprehensive aphasia program (ICAP).

DESIGN

Retrospective cost analysis of a clinical ICAP. Cost inputs were gathered directly from the provider of the ICAP. We performed several sensitivity analyses to examine major cost drivers and to separate start-up costs from operating costs.

SETTING

Urban rehabilitation hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with aphasia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total implementation cost to the provider.

RESULTS

Implementation cost of running the ICAP for the first time was $133,644 for a cohort of 8 participants with aphasia. Break-even charges per participant ranged from $15,278 for 10 participants to $19,700 for 6 participants. After accounting for start-up costs and efficiencies gained, the fourth and subsequent programs were estimated to cost $84,855 each. The majority of the costs were personnel costs, and the cost of the speech language pathologist's time was the main cost driver in this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial implementation costs are high compared with subsequent programs. Future work should examine effectiveness of an ICAP compared with other treatments to determine its cost-effectiveness.

Impact of Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Speech-language Therapy on Spontaneous Speech in Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Double-blind Study

OBJECTIVE

Aphasia recovery depends on neural reorganization, which can be enhanced by speech-language therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation. Several studies suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) associated with speech-language therapy may improve verbal performance evaluated by analytic tests, but none focused on spontaneous speech. We explored the effect of bihemispheric tDCS on spontaneous speech in patients with poststroke aphasia.

METHODS

In this multicentric controlled randomized cross-over double-blind study, we included 10 patients with poststroke aphasia (4 had aphasia >6 months and 6 with aphasia <6 months). We combined the sessions of speech-language therapy and bihemispheric tDCS (2 mA, 20 min). After three baseline speech evaluations (1/week), two different conditions were randomly consecutively proposed: active and sham tDCS over 3 weeks with 1 week of washout in between. The main outcome measure was the number of different nouns used in 2 min to answer the question "what is your job."

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between conditions concerning the main outcome measure (p = .47) nor in the number of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, repetitions, blank ideas, ideas, utterances with grammatical errors or paraphasias used. Other cognitive functions (verbal working memory, neglect, or verbal fluency) were not significantly improved in the tDCS group. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Our results differed from previous studies using tDCS to improve naming in patients with poststroke aphasia possibly due to bihemispheric stimulation, rarely used previously. The duration of the rehabilitation period was short given the linguistic complexity of the measure. This negative result should be confirmed by larger studies with ecological measures.

High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improves Verb Recovery in Aphasic Patients Depending on Current Intensity

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) is a variant of tDCS, which produces more focal stimulation, delimiting brain current flow to a defined region compared to conventional tDCS. To date, only one study has been conducted to investigate HD-tDCS effects on language recovery in aphasia. Here, we aimed to assess the effects of cathodal HD-tDCS on verb naming by comparing two current intensities: 1 vs 2 mA. In a double-blinded cross over study, two groups of 10 aphasic individuals were submitted to active cathodal HD-tDCS and sham stimulation over the right homolog of Broca's area, while performing a verb naming task. Indeed, we reasoned that, by applying inhibitory current over the right Broca's area, we would decrease the inhibitory impact from the right hemisphere to the left perilesional cortex, thus boosting language recovery. The groups differed in the intensity of the active stimulation (1 mA or 2 mA). In both groups, each condition was carried out in five consecutive daily sessions with one week of interval between the two experimental conditions. A significant improvement in verb naming was found only after cathodal HD-tDCS at 2 mA, which endured one week after the end of treatment. The improvement was not observed on the group receiving cathodal HD-tDCS at 1 mA. Our findings showed that HD-tDCS applied to the right intact hemisphere are efficacious for language recovery. These results indicate that HD-tDCS represents a promising new technique for language rehabilitation. However, systematic determination of stimulation intensity appears to be crucial for obtaining relevant effects.

Safety Review of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke

OBJECTIVES

The safety, painless, and tolerability features of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) have prompted the research on the therapeutic effects of this technique in stroke; however, an in-depth and unarguable examination of the adverse effects of tDCS in stroke patients is still lacking. This review analyzes the reported adverse effects in stroke, looking for factors that may induce side-effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of articles published from 1998 to 2015 describing tDCS application in stroke patients performed through data extraction from MEDLINE/PubMed database.

RESULTS

Only 11.62% of published papers reported the occurrence of tDCS adverse effects in stroke patients. The most common was itching (70%), followed by burning sensation (40%), headache (40%), tingling (30%), sleepiness (20%), difficulty of concentration, mild fatigue, skin redness, and dizziness (10%). No significant difference was found between studies "Reporting" vs. "Non-reporting" adverse effects regarding tDCS parameters (intensity, current density, duration of stimulation, and number of sessions).

CONCLUSION

In the majority of stroke patients, tDCS did not induce any severe adverse effect. Regrettably, many published papers did not provide a careful description of exclusion criteria, nor a systematic report of side effects. Our work emphasizes the need of a more meticulous description of the adopted exclusion criteria and of the induced adverse effects, in order to optimize the therapeutic use of tDCS and to better delineate its safety parameters in stroke.

Use of tDCS in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of the Behavioral Interventions Implemented With Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Language Recovery

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to review the behavioral treatments used in aphasia rehabilitation research that have been combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Although tDCS in aphasia treatment has shown promise, the results have not been conclusive, and their interpretation is further compounded by the heterogeneity of study characteristics. Because implementing a behavioral task during brain stimulation has been shown to be pivotal to the adjuvant effects of tDCS, we analyze the behavioral treatments that have been paired with tDCS.

Method

A computerized database search (PubMed) was completed to document and review aphasia treatment studies that combine behavioral treatment with noninvasive brain stimulation in the form of tDCS. Two authors reviewed each aphasia tDCS article published between 2008 and 2015 and evaluated (a) the behavioral interventions for aphasia that have been combined with tDCS, and (b) the methodological variables that may have influenced language outcomes in the tDCS aphasia literature.

Conclusions

A review of the behavioral treatments implemented in tDCS aphasia rehabilitation studies highlights several methodological considerations for future investigations. Impairment-focused and pragmatic treatments have been implemented in tDCS aphasia research studies. No one behavioral approach stands out as the best treatment to combine with tDCS for the promotion of language recovery.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.