Effects of adjustment of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function of the upper extremity in stroke patients

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Augmented with Motor Imagery and Upper-Limb Functional Training for Upper-Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with other therapies is reported to produce promising results in patients with stroke. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of combining tDCS with motor imagery (MI) and upper-limb functional training for upper-limb rehabilitation among patients with chronic stroke.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted among 64 patients with chronic stroke. The control group received sham tDCS with MI, while the experimental group received real tDCS with MI. Both groups performed five different upper-limb functional training exercises coupled with tDCS for 30 min, five times per week for two weeks. Fugl-Meyer's scale (FMA) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were used to measure the outcome measures at baseline and after the completion of the 10th session.

RESULTS

Analysis of covariance showed significant improvements in the post-test mean scores for FMA (F (414.4) = 35.79, p < 0.001; η² = 0.37) and ARAT (F (440.09) = 37.46, p < 0.001; η² = 0.38) in the experimental group compared to the control group while controlling for baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Anodal tDCS stimulation over the affected primary motor cortex coupled with MI and upper-limb functional training reduces impairment and disability of the upper limbs among patients with chronic stroke.

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Rehabilitation on Arm and Hand Function in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that may enhance motor recovery after stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of tDCS combined with rehabilitation on arm and hand function after stroke. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2021. We performed a systematic review of selected randomized controlled trials, and methodological qualities were measured using the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale. We calculated the standardized mean difference for effect size using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 software. We selected 28 studies for the systematic review and 20 studies for the meta-analysis. The overall effect size was 0.480 (95% CI [0.307; 0.653], p < 0.05), indicating a moderate effect size of tDCS combined with rehabilitation for upper extremity function in stroke survivors. The tDCS with occupational therapy/physical therapy (0.696; 95% CI [0.390; 1.003], p < 0.05) or virtual reality therapy (0.510; 95% CI [0.111; 0.909], p < 0.05) was also significantly more effective than other treatments. This meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials provides further evidence that tDCS combined with rehabilitation, especially occupational therapy/physical therapy and virtual reality therapy, may benefit upper extremity function of the paretic upper limb in stroke patients.

The Effect of a Single Session of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Balance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis

Aim: To evaluate the effects of a single session of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on postural balance. Introduction: The NIBS has been used widely in improving balance. However, the effect of a single session of NIBS on balance in healthy individuals has not been systemically reviewed. Methods: A systematic literature review and best evidence synthesis were conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, to determine the effects of different NIBS techniques on balance function in healthy individuals. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed by the risk of bias, and the Downs and Black tool. Data were analyzed by using the best evidence synthesis. Thirty-five articles were included that used the following NIBS techniques: anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS), cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS), continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on primary motor cortex (M1), supplementary motor area (SMA), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and cerebellum on balance. Results: Strong evidence showed that a-tDCS of M1, SMA improve balance in healthy participants, and the a-tDCS of DLPFC induces improvement only in dual task balance indices. Also, the findings indicate that cerebellar a-tDCS might significantly improve balance, if at least 10 min cerebellar a-tDCS with an intensity of ≥1 mA, over or maximum 1.5 cm below the inion, is used. Strong evidence showed that c-tDCS, cTBS, and rTMS are not effective on the balance. Conclusion: According to the results, the a-tDCS may be a useful technique to improve balance in healthy adults.

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.

Does cerebellar non-invasive brain stimulation affect corticospinal excitability in healthy individuals? A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

Numerous studies have indicated that non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) of the cerebellum could modulate corticospinal excitability (CSE) in young healthy individuals. However, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis that clarifies the effects of cerebellar NIBS on CSE. The aim of this study was to provide a meta-analytic summary of the effects of cerebellar NIBS on CSE. Seven search engines were used to identify any trial evaluating CSE before and after one session of cerebellar NIBS in healthy individuals up to June 2018. Twenty-six studies investigating the corticospinal responses following cerebellar NIBS were included. Meta-analysis was used to pool the findings from included studies. Effects were expressed as mean differences (MD) and the standard deviation (SD). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis found that paired associative stimulation (PAS) with 2 ms interval, a combination of PAS with 21.5 ms interval and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with a frequency of < 5 Hz increase CSE (P _PAS2 < 0.00001, P _{PAS21.5 +a-tDCS} = 0.02, P _rTMS = 0.04). However, continuous theta burst stimulation, a combination of PAS with 25 ms interval and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, and PAS with a 6 ms interval decreased CSE (P _PAS6 < 0.00001, P _cTBS < 0.00001, P _{PAS25 +a-tDCS} = 0.003). The results of this review show that cerebellar NIBS techniques are a promising tool for increasing CSE.

The Effect of Unihemispheric Concurrent Dual-Site Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortices on Motor Function in Patients With Sub-Acute Stroke

It is believed that unihemispheric concurrent dual-site transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS_UHCDS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) causes an increase in motor cortex excitability. However, the clinical effect of this type of stimulation on patients with neurological conditions is not yet known. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of anodal-tDCS_UHCDS (a-tDCS_UHCDS) on upper limb motor function in subacute stroke patients. Fifteen patients participated in this sham-controlled crossover study. The main outcome measures were the reaction time (RT) to visual stimuli, completion time of a nine-pin pegboard (9-PPB), and the scores from the Fugl–Meyer assessment (FMA) for the upper limb of the involved side before and after three brain stimulation conditions. For a-tDCS_UHCDS, the anodal electrodes were placed on the M1 and the DLPFC, while for a-tDCS, the anodal electrode was placed on the M1. For the sham stimulation, the tDCS was turned off after 30 s. For brain stimulation, the selected current was 1 mA for 20 min. After a-tDCS_UHCDS, there was a significant reduction in the RT and completion time of the 9-PPB compared with the times after a-tDCS and the sham stimulation: p = 0.013 and p = 0.022, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the FMA scores after the three types of stimulations (p = 0.085). Compared with a-tDCS, a-tDCS_UHCDS temporarily improved the RT and dexterity of the involved hand in subacute stroke patients.

Clinical Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), identifier IRCT2015012520787N1.

Cerebral ischemia and neuroregeneration

Cerebral ischemia is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although stroke (a form of cerebral ischemia)-related costs are expected to reach 240.67 billion dollars by 2030, options for treatment against cerebral ischemia/stroke are limited. All therapies except anti-thrombolytics (i.e., tissue plasminogen activator) and hypothermia have failed to reduce neuronal injury, neurological deficits, and mortality rates following cerebral ischemia, which suggests that development of novel therapies against stroke/cerebral ischemia are urgently needed. Here, we discuss the possible mechanism(s) underlying cerebral ischemia-induced brain injury, as well as current and future novel therapies (i.e., growth factors, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, melatonin, resveratrol, protein kinase C isozymes, pifithrin, hypothermia, fatty acids, sympathoplegic drugs, and stem cells) as it relates to cerebral ischemia.

The effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on corticospinal excitability in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the feasibility of modulating bilateral corticospinal excitability with different polarities of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in chronic, incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

Six subjects with chronic incomplete SCI (>12 months post injury) participated in this crossover study. Intervention consisted of 3 sessions, separated by at least 1 week, in which each subject received the conditions cathodal, anodal, and sham tsDCS. Stimulation was delivered at 2.5 mA for 20 minutes with the active electrode positioned over the spinous processes of T10-T11 and the reference electrode over left deltoid. To measure the effects of tsDCS on corticospinal excitability, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from transcranial magnetic stimulation were measured bilaterally from soleus before and after tsDCS.

RESULTS

Five subjects completed all 3 sessions. One subject withdrew after 2 sessions due to complications unrelated to the study. MEPs were measurable in 5 subjects. No significant differences in change of MEP amplitudes were found between the 3 conditions. However, there were trends that indicated laterality of response, particularly with cathodal tsDCS increasing corticospinal excitability contralateral to the reference electrode and decreasing corticospinal excitability ipsilateral to the reference electrode.

CONCLUSION

Corticospinal excitability may be modulated with laterality by tsDCS in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI. Further research is needed to 1) determine whether different placement of the reference electrode can lead to uniform modulation bilaterally, and 2) reveal whether these alterations in corticospinal excitability can lead to improved movement function in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI.

Anatomical Parameters of tDCS to Modulate the Motor System after Stroke: A Review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method to modulate the local field potential in neural tissue and consequently, cortical excitability. As tDCS is relatively portable, affordable, and accessible, the applications of tDCS to probe brain-behavior connections have rapidly increased in the last 10 years. One of the most promising applications is the use of tDCS to modulate excitability in the motor cortex after stroke and promote motor recovery. However, the results of clinical studies implementing tDCS to modulate motor excitability have been highly variable, with some studies demonstrating that as many as 50% or more of patients fail to show a response to stimulation. Much effort has therefore been dedicated to understand the sources of variability affecting tDCS efficacy. Possible suspects include the placement of the electrodes, task parameters during stimulation, dosing (current amplitude, duration of stimulation, frequency of stimulation), individual states (e.g., anxiety, motivation, attention), and more. In this review, we first briefly review potential sources of variability specific to stroke motor recovery following tDCS. We then examine how the anatomical variability in tDCS placement [e.g., neural target(s) and montages employed] may alter the neuromodulatory effects that tDCS exerts on the post-stroke motor system.

Advancing non-invasive neuromodulation clinical trials in children: Lessons from perinatal stroke

Applications of non-invasive brain stimulation including therapeutic neuromodulation are expanding at an alarming rate. Increasingly established scientific principles, including directional modulation of well-informed cortical targets, are advancing clinical trial development. However, high levels of disease burden coupled with zealous enthusiasm may be getting ahead of rational research and evidence. Experience is limited in the developing brain where additional issues must be considered. Properly designed and meticulously executed clinical trials are essential and required to advance and optimize the potential of non-invasive neuromodulation without risking the well-being of children and families. Perinatal stroke causes most hemiplegic cerebral palsy and, as a focal injury of defined timing in an otherwise healthy brain, is an ideal human model of developmental plasticity. Advanced models of how the motor systems of young brains develop following early stroke are affording novel windows of opportunity for neuromodulation clinical trials, possibly directing neuroplasticity toward better outcomes. Reviewing the principles of clinical trial design relevant to neuromodulation and using perinatal stroke as a model, this article reviews the current and future issues of advancing such trials in children.

Comparison of upper extremity function, pain, and tactile sense between the uneffected side of hemiparetic patients and healthy subjects

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to compare the unaffected upper extremity of patients with hemiparesis with that of healthy subjects in terms of function, pain, and tactile sense. [Subjects and Methods] Upper extremity evaluation parameters of 20 patients with hemiparesis were compared with an age-matched control group of 20 healthy subjects. A shorter version of the Disability of Arm and Shoulder Questionnaire, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and Simple Shoulder Test were used to evaluate the upper extremity functionality. The Visual Analog Scale was used to measure pain severity at rest, at night, and during activity. Tactile sensation levels were assessed by Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments at four palmar areas. [Results] A statistically significant difference was found in the upper extremity functionality between the groups. Pain severity at rest was significantly higher in the hemiparetic group. There was no significant difference in night and activity pain severities or tactile sensation levels between the groups. [Conclusion] According to our results, the unaffected side of patients with hemiparesis differs in functionality and pain at rest compared with that of healthy persons. Studies with larger sample size and various evaluation tests are needed to further investigate the unaffected side of patients with hemiparesis.