The Effects of Cognitive Rehabilitation on Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Neuropsychological rehabilitation in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, chronic, inflammatory and demyelinating disease that affects the Central Nervous System (CNS). It is the most common disabling neurological disease in young patients not caused by traumatic shock. Depending on how symptoms appear and how often they occur, there are different subtypes of MS. One of them is the relapsing-remitting phenotype (R-R), which the symptoms appear in the form of isolated outbreaks which, little by little, are causing the increase of the disease and its sequelae. MS encompasses a wide variety of symptoms, including possible cognitive impairment. In the literature there is no clear methodology and a defined and structured consensus to carry out neuropsychological rehabilitation processes in this group.Aim: This study aims to review and synthesize the available scientific evidence about the neuropsychological intervention on cognitive impairment of people with multiple sclerosis, relapsing-remitting subtype.Methods: Keywords for database search (Pubmed and Wos) were established, as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, the articles were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria; methodological quality criteria were applied. Articles published in the last 10 years were included.Results: Fifteen articles that met the established criteria were selected. Most of these studies identify as effective their cognitive rehabilitation programs, some of them showed changes in neural structures after rehabilitation.Discussion: It seems that cognitive rehabilitation is effective in influencing cognitive deterioration in R-R MS. This highlights the importance of neuropsychological evaluation and intervention from the early stages of the disease.

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.

Reporting interventions in trials evaluating cognitive rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the quantity and quality of description of cognitive rehabilitation for cognitive deficits in people with multiple sclerosis, using a variety of published checklists, and suggest ways of improving the reporting of these interventions.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 10 electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from inception to May 2017. Grey literature databases, trial registers, reference lists and author citations were also searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Papers were included if participants were people with multiple sclerosis aged 18 years and over and if the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation in improving functional ability for memory, attention or executive dysfunction, with or without a control group, was being evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies were included in this review. The reporting of a number of key aspects of cognitive rehabilitation was poor. This was particularly in relation to content of interventions (reported completely in 26 of the 54 studies), intervention procedures (reported completely in 16 of the 54 studies), delivery mode (reported completely in 24 of the 54 studies) and intervention mechanism of action (reported completely in 21 of the 54 studies).

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of cognitive rehabilitation for memory, attention and executive function for multiple sclerosis, across a range of study designs, is poor. Existing reporting checklists do not adequately cover aspects relevant to cognitive rehabilitation, such as the approaches used to address cognitive deficits. Future checklists could consider these aspects we have identified in this review.